DamRemovalAnalysisGuidelines2017 508 PDF

Dam Removal Analysis Guidelines
for Sediment
Advisory Committee on Water Information
Subcommittee on Sedimentation
U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Reclamation
Technical Service Center
Denver, Colorado December 2017
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEDIMENTATION
The Subcommittee on Sedimentation (http://acwi.gov/sos/index.html) seeks to
facilitate collaboration among Federal agencies, university research organizations,
and professional society organizations to identify and address major sediment-
related problems and issues facing the United States. The Subcommittee on
Sedimentation was formed in 1939 and now reports to the Federal Advisory
Committee on Water Information (ACWI), which is under the U.S. Department of
the Interior, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science. Member organizations are
listed in the table below:
Agricultural Research Service

National Resources Conservation Service U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Forest Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Defense
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of Interior
National Park Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Tennessee Valley Authority Other federal representatives
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
American Society of Civil Engineers
Colorado Water Resources Research Institute
Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of
Professional and university research
Hydrologic Science, Inc.
organizations
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental
Sciences
Missouri Water Resources Research Center
Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado
Dam Removal Analysis

Guidelines for Sediment
Prepared by:
Timothy J. Randle, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE.

Supervisory Hydraulic Engineer and Manager, Sedimentation and River
Hydraulics Group
Jennifer Bountry, M.S., P.E.

Hydraulic Engineer, Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group
Peer Reviewed by:
Blair P. Greimann, Ph.D., P.E.

Hydraulic Engineer, Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group
In addition, the information presented in this guideline has been externally peer
reviewed by the following subject matter experts listed below (in alphabetical
order) from other federal agencies, universities, private consultants, and non-
governmental organizations:
• American Rivers
• Chris Bromley (Scottish Environment Protection Agency)
• Chauncey Anderson (U.S. Geological Survey)
• Mathias J. Collins (National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS)
• Joanna Curran (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants)
• Tom Augspurger (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
• Jeff Duda (U.S. Geological Survey)
• Amy East (U.S. Geological Survey)
• Ken Finkelstein (National Marine Fisheries Service)
• Jon Fripp (USDA - Natural Resource Conservation Service)
• Alex Hackman (Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game)
• Eric Hutchens (National Marine Fisheries Service)
• Jim MacBroom (Milone & MacBroom)
v
• Jon Major (U.S. Geological Survey)
• Toby Minear (Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences)
• Joe Rathbun (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality)
• Marcin Whitman (California Department of Fish and Game)
• Molly Wood (U.S. Geological Survey)
Acknowledgements
The development of these guidelines was only possible with the dedication and hard
work of many people working under the sponsorship of the Subcommittee on
Sedimentation. The guidelines benefited greatly from the input during workshops in 2008
and 2009 by numerous technical experts working in the field of dam removal
representing federal and state agencies, universities, private consultants, and non-
governmental agencies. Mathias J. Collins (NMFS) helped write the section on
monitoring and adaptive management. Joe Rathbun (Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality, retired) contributed to the section on contaminants. Tom
Augspurger from U.S. Fish and Wildlife contributed to linking interagency risk
assessment methodologies and water quality analysis.
The U.S. Geological survey hosted the 2008 workshop in Portland, Oregon and a field
trip to the Sandy River, Oregon where Marmot Dam had been removed. Rose Wallick,
Chauncey Anderson, Jon Major, Kurt Spicer, and Heather Bragg are acknowledged for
their efforts to host the workshop and organize and lead the field trip. Acknowledgements
go to the leaders of the technical teams who summarized the ideas into the first draft
components of the guidelines. The reservoir erosion and sedimentation group was led by
Peter Downs of Stillwater Sciences, the downstream river sediment transport and
deposition group was led by Will Graf of the University of South Carolina, and the water
quality group was led by Chauncey Anderson of the U.S. Geological Survey.
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission hosted the 2009 workshop. Scott Carney is
acknowledged for his efforts to host the workshop and organize and lead the field visits
to two local dam removal projects.
The guidelines additionally benefited from a dam removal database compiled by

American Rivers and USGS and interactions among a group of scientists gathered to
review and disseminate the state of science in dam removal studies at the U.S. Geological
Survey’s John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis in 2014 and 2015.
A special thanks to the Reclamation’s Research and Development Office and Policy and
Analysis Office for providing funding to write these guidelines and to the Subcommittee
on Sedimentation for providing travel funding to non-federal participants at the
workshops. Formatting of the document by Andrea Moore and illustrations by Cynthia
Gray are greatly appreciated.
List of participants at the October 2008 workshop in Portland, Oregon and their
affiliation at the time of the workshop are provided in the table below.
vi
2008 Workshop Participant Affiliation
American Society of Civil Engineers, West
David Admiral
Consultants
Chauncey Anderson U.S. Geological Survey
Dick Bauman Bureau of Reclamation
Jerry Bernard National Resources Conservation Service
Jennifer Bountry Bureau of Reclamation
American Society of Civil Engineers, West
Jeff Bradley
Consultants
Curt Brown Bureau of Reclamation
Scott Carney Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
Dan Cenderelli U.S. Forest Service
Brian Cluer National Marine Fisheries Service
Matt Collins National Marine Fisheries Service
Yantao Cui Stillwater Sciences
Pete Downs Stillwater Sciences
John Esler Portland General Electric
Stanford Gibson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Doug Glysson U.S. Geological Survey
Chris Goodell West Consultants
Will Graf University of South Carolina
Gordon Grant U.S. Forest Service
Blair Greimann Bureau of Reclamation
Craig Hickey University of Mississippi
Bill Jackson National Park Service
Yafei Jia University of Mississippi
Cassie Klumpp Bureau of Reclamation
Karl Lee U.S. Geological Survey
Mary Ann Madej U.S. Geological Survey
Christopher Magirl U.S. Geological Survey
Jon Major U.S. Geological Survey
James MacBroom Milone and MacBroom
Marty Melchior Interfluve
Charles Podolak National Center for Earth-Surface Dynamics
Cynthia Rachol U.S. Geological Survey
Tim Randle Bureau of Reclamation
Joe Rathbun Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
John Remus U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Stephen Scott U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mike Shannon Agricultural Research Service
Gary Smillie National Park Service
Tim Straub U.S. Geological Survey
Desiree Tullos Oregon State University
Rose Wallick U.S. Geological Survey
Marcin Whitman California Department of Fish and Game
Andrew Wilcox University of Montana
Laura Wildman American Rivers
Brian Winter National Park Service
vii
List of participants at the October 2009 workshop in State College, Pennsylvania and
their affiliation at the time of the workshop are provided in the table below.
2009 Workshop Participant Affiliation
Chauncey Anderson U.S. Geological Survey

Travis Bauer Bureau of Reclamation
Jerry Bernard National Resources Conservation Service
Jennifer Bountry Bureau of Reclamation
Scott Carney Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
Dan Cenderelli USDA Forest Service
Matt Collins National Marine Fisheries Service
Yantao Cui Stillwater Sciences
Joanna Curran University of Virginia Engineering
Pete Downs Stillwater Sciences
Brian Graber American Rivers
John Gray U.S. Geological Survey
Jeffrey Hartranft Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Lisa Hollingsworth-Segedy American Rivers
Vincent Humenay Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Christopher Magirl U.S. Geological Survey
Jim MacBroom Milone and MacBroom
Marty Melchior Interfluve
Katie Ombalski Clearwater Conservancy of North Central Pennsylvania
Charles Podolak National Center for Earth-Surface Dynamics
Tim Randle Bureau of Reclamation
Joe Rathbun Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Matt Romkens Agricultural Research Service
Gary Smillie National Park Service
Sara Strassman American Rivers
Tim Straub U.S. Geological Survey Illinois
Marcin Whitman California Department of Fish & Game
Shelby Zelonis University of South Carolina
viii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
DRIP Dam Removal Information Portal
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GPS global positioning system
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NID National Inventory of Dams
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
USACE U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WRD World Register of Dams
Glossary
Biota: The fish, wildlife, and vegetation along a stream channel.
Lakebed sediment: Alluvial deposits of fine sediment along the reservoir bottom.
Low-head dam: A dam or weir built across a stream to pass flows from upstream over
all, or nearly all, of the width of the dam crest on a continual and uncontrolled basis (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Nationwide Permit 53). In general, a low-head dam does not
have a separate spillway or spillway gates but it may have an uncontrolled spillway. The
dam crest is the top of the dam from left abutment to right abutment, and if present, an
uncontrolled spillway. A low-head dam provides little water storage function.
Reservoir delta: Alluvial deposits of coarse sediment where stream channels enter a
reservoir. Not all reservoirs have deltas, but when present, the top surface of a delta
deposit is near the normal water surface elevation. Overtime, the deposits prograde both
downstream toward the dam and upstream along the stream channels entering the
reservoir.
Relative reservoir sediment volume: ratio of reservoir sediment volume or mass to the
mean annual sediment load (volume or mass) of the river.
Reservoir impoundment: River water stored behind a dam or weir.
Risk analysis: An estimate of the risk of consequences occurring from releasing

sediment as a result of a dam removal. Risk is determined from the product of the
i
probability of sediment impact (relative reservoir sediment volume) and the consequence
of that impact resulting from dam removal.
Risk assessment: The process of considering the quantitative or qualitative estimate of

risk, along with all related social, environmental, cost, temporal, and other factors to
determine a recommended course of action to mitigate or accept the risk.
Risk management: Actions implemented to communicate the risks and either accept,
avoid, transfer, or control the risks to an acceptable level considering associated costs and
benefits of any action taken.
Sediment: Weathered rock particles transported by water or wind. In this guideline,

sediment is referred to by three classifications: particle grain size, transport mechanism,
or sediment source as defined below:
• Particle grain size
– Fine Sediment (<0.062 mm)
• Clay (< 0.004 mm)
• Silt (0.004 to 0.062 mm)
– Coarse Sediment (> 0.062 mm)
• Sand (0.062 to 2 mm)
• Gravel (2 to 64 mm)
• Cobble (64 to 256 mm)
• Boulder (> 256 mm)
– Sediment Particle Diameter Size (percentile)
• D50: Particle diameter representing the 50% cumulative percentile
value, median particle (50% of the particles in the sediment sample
are finer than the D50 grain size)
• D90: Particle diameter representing the 90% cumulative percentile
value (90% of the particles in the sediment sample are finer than
the D90 grain size)
• Transport Mechanism
– Bed load: particles that are rolling, sliding or saltating in either continuous
or intermittent contact with the channel bed
– Suspended Load: particles moving in the water column and suspended
above the channel bed by turbulence
• Sediment Source
– Bed-material load: sediment in transport that is comprised of particles that
are found in appreciable quantities in the channel bed.
– Wash load: suspended sediment load that is finer than the bed-material
load and not found in appreciable quantities in the channel bed.
ii
Disclaimer
The Dam Removal Analysis Guidelines for Sediment are intended to assist engineers and
scientists with determining the level of sediment data collection, analysis, and modeling
for dam removal projects using a risk-based approach. The guidelines will not address
every unique dam removal case or circumstance nor the uncertainties that may be
discovered as a result of dam removal. No warranties are implied or expressed by these
guidelines. The guidelines are not intended to be a regulatory document, but are intended
to capture the best practices for sediment analysis related to dam removal, and to provide
a starting point for evaluation of potential sediment-related aspects for new dam
removals.
iii
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. I
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1
Dam construction and removal background ....................................................................... 5
Dam construction in the United States............................................................................ 5
Dam removals ................................................................................................................. 7
Dam removal challenges............................................................................................... 10
Dam removal guidelines and resources ........................................................................ 12
Sediment guidelines overview .......................................................................................... 15
Guidelines objective...................................................................................................... 15
Guidelines applicability ................................................................................................ 15
Guidelines development................................................................................................ 15
Using risk to guide level of investigation ..................................................................... 17
Application of guidelines.................................................................................................. 18
Guideline Steps ............................................................................................................. 18
Understand project objectives....................................................................................... 20
Establish communication plan ...................................................................................... 22
Establishing a sediment analysis team.......................................................................... 25
Review Permit Requirements ....................................................................................... 25
Cases of “negligible” reservoir sediment.......................................................................... 26
Step 1: identify sediment concerns and benefits............................................................... 29
Step 1a: Develop initial conceptual model ................................................................... 29
Step 1b: identify sediment concerns ............................................................................. 29
Sediment impact concerns within the reservoir and upstream river reach ............... 30
Sediment impact concerns in the downstream river ................................................. 31
Sediment impact concerns in the downstream receiving waters (e.g. lakes, marine
environment) ............................................................................................................. 32
Step 1c: identify benefits from sediment release .......................................................... 32
Step 2: collect reservoir and river data ............................................................................. 35
Step 2a: compile and synthesize available information................................................ 35
Conduct site reconnaissance ..................................................................................... 35
Develop conceptual diagram..................................................................................... 36
Describe the dam history and site conditions ........................................................... 37
Describe reservoir sedimentation and operations history ......................................... 38
Characterize the watershed context .......................................................................... 40
Characterize hydrology............................................................................................. 41
Step 2b: conduct reservoir sediment survey ................................................................. 42
Produce topographic and bathymetric map............................................................... 43
Estimate the predam topography and reservoir sediment volume ............................ 43
Measure the reservoir sediment sizes and spatial deposition patterns...................... 46
Determine reservoir sediment mass .......................................................................... 48
Step 2c: collect river data.............................................................................................. 49
Step 3 evaluate potential for contaminated sediment ....................................................... 51
Step 3a: determine if contaminants are of concern....................................................... 52
v
Step 3b: if contaminants are of concern, proceed with sediment chemistry analysis and
determine if concentrations exceed criteria .................................................................. 57
Example tool for determining the number of sediment samples .............................. 60
Step 3c: conduct biological analysis and estimate sensitivity to determine if
contaminated sediment can be released ........................................................................ 61
Contaminated Sediment Management Options ............................................................ 62
Example contaminated sediment evaluation flow charts .............................................. 63
Step 4: determine relative reservoir sediment volume and probability of impact ............ 67
Step 4a: estimate the average annual sediment load ..................................................... 67
Method 1: continuous sediment load measurement .................................................. 67
Method 2: sediment yield.......................................................................................... 68
Method 3: cases where the reservoir still traps sediment ......................................... 68
Method 4: sediment-discharge rating curve .............................................................. 70
Step 4b: estimate the probability of sediment impact ................................................... 76
Example calculations ................................................................................................ 77
Step 5: refine potential sediment-related consequences and estimate risk ....................... 81
Step 5a: identify consequences ..................................................................................... 81
Step 5b: rank consequences .......................................................................................... 82
Step 5c: compute risk of sediment impact .................................................................... 83
Step 6: develop dam removal and sediment management alternatives............................. 85
Step 6a: Develop the dam removal plan ....................................................................... 85
Full or partial dam removal....................................................................................... 86
Potential barriers to sediment erosion ....................................................................... 87
Reservoir drawdown ................................................................................................. 88
Phased dam removal ................................................................................................. 90
Step 6b. Develop sediment management alternatives................................................... 91
No action ................................................................................................................... 92
River erosion ............................................................................................................. 92
Mechanical removal .................................................................................................. 93
Sediment stabilization ............................................................................................... 95
Channel Formation in Former Reservoir .................................................................. 96
Multiple dam removals ............................................................................................. 98
Step 7: conduct sediment analysis based on risk ............................................................ 101
Develop a conceptual model ....................................................................................... 103
Reservoir sediment erosion ..................................................................................... 104
Downstream sediment transport and deposition ..................................................... 109
List of questions for the conceptual model development ....................................... 110
Empirical reservoir sediment erosion estimates ......................................................... 113
Assessing reservoir sediment stability .................................................................... 117
Total stream power calculations ................................................................................. 118
Mass balance calculations ........................................................................................... 119
Sediment wave model ................................................................................................. 120
Sediment transport capacity calculations .................................................................... 121
Geomorphic analysis................................................................................................... 122
Laboratory modeling................................................................................................... 123
Field experiments ........................................................................................................ 124
vi
Numerical modeling.................................................................................................... 125
Special considerations................................................................................................. 130
Climate change........................................................................................................ 130
Multiple dam removals ........................................................................................... 130
Step 8: Assess Uncertainty of Predictions ...................................................................... 133
Observational Uncertainties ........................................................................................ 133
Reservoir sediment volume uncertainty.................................................................. 133
Sediment grain size distribution uncertainty........................................................... 134
Contaminant uncertainty ......................................................................................... 135
Stream flow hydrograph uncertainty ...................................................................... 135
Parameter Uncertainty ................................................................................................ 135
Model Structure Uncertainties .................................................................................... 136
Step 9: determine if sediment impacts are tolerable and modify sediment management
plan.................................................................................................................................. 137
Example water quality mitigation ............................................................................... 138
Example flooding mitigation ...................................................................................... 139
Step 10: develop a monitoring and adaptive management plan ..................................... 141
Monitoring purposes and scopes................................................................................. 142
Monitoring design ....................................................................................................... 143
Monitoring parameters, methods, and reporting standards ......................................... 144
Example Case Studies ..................................................................................................... 147
Negligible Reservoir Sediment case study: Gold Hill Dam removal, Oregon ........... 147
Low risk case study: Chiloquin Dam removal, Oregon .............................................. 148
Moderate risk case study: Savage Rapids Dam removal, Oregon .............................. 149
Moderate risk case study: Shuford Dam removal, North Carolina ............................. 151
High risk case study: Elwha and Glines Canyon Dam removals, Washington .......... 151
Contaminants case study: Lower Dam removal, Massachusetts ................................ 153
Multiple dam removal case study: Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project, California ... 155
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 157
References ....................................................................................................................... 159
Appendix A ..................................................................................................................... A-1
Reservoir sedimentation process..................................................................................... A-1
Upstream delta extent ................................................................................................. A-5
Sedimentation rates ..................................................................................................... A-5
Legacy sediment and legacy dams .............................................................................. A-5
Trap efficiency ............................................................................................................ A-6
Reservoir operation effects on sedimentation ............................................................. A-9
Tables
Page
Table 1.—U.S. Dam Removals greater than 15 m (50 ft), sorted by dam height
(American Rivers Dam Removal Database Version 2, 11-13-2017). .......................... 9
Table 2.—Recommended expertise for the sediment analysis team. ............................... 25
vii
Table 3.—Reservoir sediment dry unit weights in Metric and English units reported
by Morris and Fan (1997). .......................................................................................... 49
Table 4.—Initial unit weights of reservoir sediment reported by Strand and
Pemberton (1982)........................................................................................................ 49
Table 5.—Sediment transport equations available in SRH-Capacity program. ............... 75
Table 6.—Matrix to estimate the risk of sediment impacts from the probability of
occurrence and the consequence should the impact occur.......................................... 84
Table 7.—Applicability of sediment analyses and modeling to impact categories. ....... 103
Table 8.—Portion of sediment volume eroded from the reservoir after dam removal
for case studies reported by Major et al. (2017). ...................................................... 114
Table 9.—Summary of sediment volume eroded from the reservoir over the short
term (< 1 year) and long term (> 1 year) based on data reported by Major et al.
(2017). ....................................................................................................................... 117
Figures
Page
Figure 1.—Dams exist in a wide variety of sizes and serve a wide variety of purposes. ... 2
Figure 2.—The rate of dam construction peaked during the 1950s to 1970s
(2013 NID). ................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3.—Spatial distribution of NID dams (2013) across the United States................... 7
Figure 4.—Compilation of dams removed and dams with at least one published study
on the physical or ecological river response to dam removal (a) by dam height and (b)
the cumulative number of dams removed by year (Bellmore et al. 2017, data from
Bellmore et al. 2015 and American Rivers, 2014)........................................................ 8
Figure 5.—Spatial distribution of dam removals within the United States (Bellmore
et al. 2017, data from Bellmore et al. 2015 and American Rivers, 2014). ................... 9
Figure 6.—Workshop group discussions and field visits to assist with dam removal
guidelines development. ............................................................................................. 16
Figure 7.—Sediment analysis steps for dam removal. ..................................................... 20
Figure 8.—Example estimate of the predam profile through reservoir sediments at
Coleman Dam on South Fork Battle Creek, CA. ........................................................ 45
Figure 9.—Potential pathways of released reservoir sediment into downstream river
channel utilized on Klamath River evaluation (CDM, 2011). .................................... 56
Figure 10.—Post-removal reservoir sediment (soil) decision tree. .................................. 64
Figure 11.—Fish consumption example decision tree...................................................... 65
Figure 12.—Empirical reservoir sediment trap efficiency curves based on Churchill
(1948) and Brune (1953) and additional case studies (Strand and Pemberton, 1982).69
Figure 15.—Example daily coarse sediment load hydrograph computed for the
Sprague River in Oregon. ........................................................................................... 72
Figure 16.—Relative probability of sediment impact based on ratio of reservoir
sediment volume or mass (Vs) to average annual sediment load (Qs). ...................... 77
Figure 17.—Longitudinal profiles of the reservoir behind Chiloquin Dam. .................... 78
Figure 18.—Example reservoir cross section plot. ........................................................... 78
Figure 19.—Aerial photograph of the reservoir behind Chiloquin Dam. ......................... 79
viii
Figure 20.—A portion of Savage Rapids Dam (near Grants Pass, OR) was removed
to allow fish passage while the remaining portion helps to protect a downstream
pumping plant. ............................................................................................................ 87
Figure 21.—A series of notches were cut into Glines Canyon Dam (near Port
Angeles, WA) with a hydraulic hammer to release river flows downstream
during dam removal. ................................................................................................... 89
Figure 22.—Hemlock Dam site, Washington. A - looking upstream at dam. B - Looking
upstream at reservoir sedimentation and lake prior to dam removal. C - Looking
downstream at Trout Creek about 0.8 km downstream of dam. ................................. 94
Figure 23.—A pilot channel excavated through the Lake Mills delta and alder forest
growing on the delta was cleared in preparation for the removal of Glines Canyon
Dam near Port Angeles, Washington (photograph courtesy of Bureau of Reclamation,
December 2010). ......................................................................................................... 97
Figure 24.—Sediment analysis and modeling options for each sediment risk
category. .................................................................................................................... 102
Figure 25.—Conceptual model of sediment erosion from the reservoir modified from
Doyle et al. (2003a) and Cannatelli and Curran (2012). ........................................... 106
Figure 26.—Looking upstream at extensive lateral erosion of Lake Mills delta
(upper coarse layer) near Port Angeles, WA less than 1 year after phased dam
removal began. .......................................................................................................... 115
Figure 27.—The Elwha River initially incised through the Lake Aldwell delta over a
cleared forested area that did not coincide with the predam channel alignment. ..... 116
Figure 28.—Example sediment wave model results for the removal of Hemlock Dam
on Trout Creek in southwest Washington State........................................................ 121
Figure 29.—Gordon Grant (left) inspects the physical model constructed by Chris
Bromley (right) at the Saint Anthony Falls Laboratory, MN of Lake Mills behind
Glines Canyon Dam to investigate reservoir sediment erosion processes. ............... 124
Figure 30.—Time lapse photograph of the lower Lake Mills delta during the reservoir
drawdown experiment on April 19, 1994. ................................................................ 125
Figure 31.—Photograph of Lake Aldwell spilling through an excavated breach in
Elwha Dam near Port Angeles, WA on October 17, 2011. ...................................... 129
Figure 32.—Gold Hill Dam on the Rogue River prior to dam removal in 1999 (left),
during dam removal in 2008 (center), and after dam removal in 2008 (right). ........ 147
Figure 33.—Chiloquin Dam on the Sprague River just prior to dam removal in 2008
(left), during dam removal in 2008 (center), and after dam removal in 2008 (right).
................................................................................................................................... 148
Figure 34.—Downstream view of short-term turbidity plume released from
breaching of Savage Rapids Dam in Oregon (left photo) and view of sediment
excavation at water intake just downstream of dam (right photo). . ......................... 150
Figure 35.—Elwha Dam on the Elwha River prior to just to dam removal in 2011
................................................................................................................................... 152
Figure 36.—Lake Aldwell Delta upstream from Elwha Dam prior to just to dam
removal in 2011 (left), during dam removal in 2012 (center), and after dam
removal in 2015 (right). ............................................................................................ 153
ix
Figure 37.—Glines Canyon Dam on the Elwha River prior to just to dam removal
in 2011 (left), during dam removal in 2012 (center), and after dam removal in 2015
(right). ....................................................................................................................... 153
Figure 38.—Lake Mills delta upstream from Glines Canyon Dam prior to just to
dam removal in 2011 (left), during dam removal in 2012 (center), and after dam
removal in 2015 (right). ............................................................................................ 153
Figure 39.—Rapid Revegetation the Impoundment Following the Removal of Lower
Dam (Photos by Alex Hackman, MA Division of Ecological Restoration). ............ 154
Figure 40.—Locations of dams removed within Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead
Restoration Project (upper image), view of Coleman Diversion Dam (lower left), and
view of South Diversion Dam (lower right) (Jones and Stokes, 2005). Note that
Inskip Diversion and the hatchery were not removed. ............................................. 156
Figure A-1.—Reservoir sediment profile with delta and lakebed sediment deposits
(after Morris and Fan, 1997). .................................................................................... A-1
Figure A-2.—Vegetation has grown on extensive reservoir sedimentation behind Mable
Bluff Dam, which is located on the Truckee River approximately 3 miles upstream
from Pyramid Lake and 50 miles downstream of Reno, Nevada.. ........................... A-2
Figure A-3.—Four basic patterns of reservoir sediment deposition: delta, tapering,
wedge, and uniform (Morris and Fan, 1997). ........................................................... A-3
Figure A-4.—Looking upstream at Lake Mills delta on the Elwha River in Washington
State during removal of Glines Canyon Dam. Photograph courtesy of National Park
Service taken from time-lapse camera on February 12, 2012. ................................. A-4
Figure A-5.— Looking across at example of legacy dam. Photography courtesy of
Jim MacBroom.......................................................................................................... A-6
Figure A-6.—Empirical reservoir sediment trap efficiency curves based on Churchill
(1948) and Brune (1953) and additional case studies (Strand and Pemberton, 1982).
................................................................................................................................... A-8
Figure A-7.—Reservoir sediment profile after the reservoir has filled with sediment. . A-9
x
Dam Removal Analysis Guidelines for Sediment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As of 2016, American Rivers reported that nearly 1,400 dams have been removed
in the United States. Dam removal is expected to continue in the future with
changing environmental values, aging infrastructure, and continued reservoir
sedimentation. Sediment management can be an important aspect of a dam
removal projects and significantly affect the implementation cost. The amount of
required sediment data collection and analysis for dam removal projects has
varied widely across the United States and is not always in concert with the actual
risk of sediment impacts. Therefore, the interagency Subcommittee on
Sedimentation has sponsored the development of national guidelines for assessing
sediment-related effects from dam removals. These guidelines build upon
concepts developed at workshops with national experts from government,
universities, consultants, and non-governmental organizations, and from the
benefit of numerous case studies from locations across the United States.
The dam removal analysis guidelines for sediment are written for engineers and
scientists who have at least a basic understanding of river hydraulics and sediment
transport (see Appendix A for additional reservoir sedimentation background).
The guidelines include ten steps that match the level of data collection, analysis,
and mitigation to the estimated risk of potential sediment impacts (see flow chart
below). The guidelines suggest an iterative analysis approach, starting with
readily available information and revisiting or repeating analysis steps as more
data become available. Once the user of these guidelines is aware of various
sections and the analysis flowchart, the guidelines do not have to be read in
sequential order.
I
Executive Summary
Flow Chart: Sediment analysis guideline steps for dam removal.
Many low-head dams have very little sediment trapped within their
impoundments and, therefore, there is little risk of sediment impacts and no need
for extensive sediment investigations. The guidelines offer special simplified
procedures to verify cases of negligible reservoir sediment where no additional
analysis is necessary. Negligible reservoir sediment volumes are less than 10% of
the average annual load, and similar to a typical alluvial feature (e.g. sand bar or
gravel bar) in nearby river reaches.
II
Except for negligible sediment volumes, the potential for contaminants is

evaluated using a screening survey. If there is no cause for contaminant concern
and the reservoir sediment contains less than 10% clay and silt, then the
probability of contaminated sediment can be considered low and additional
contaminant testing and analysis is not necessary. If contaminants are a concern,
sediment chemistry sampling and analysis is conducted to determine if
contaminants can be safely released into the downstream river without impairing
human health or aquatic species. Comparison with local, state and federal
sediment quality criteria and background sediment quality are integrated to ensure
analysis meets regulatory requirements. If the contaminants cannot be safely
released, mitigation must be implemented that often consists of removal and
disposal of contaminated sediment or capping contaminated sediment in place
with adequate protection from future seepage and erosion. If contaminants can be
safely released into the downstream river channel, the guideline user can proceed
with determination of risk of sediment-related impacts.
For cases considering release of reservoir sediment downstream, a key part of the
guidance is using estimated risk of sediment impacts to drive decisions on the
amount of data collection, analysis, and mitigation. Risk is the product of the
probability of sediment impacts and the consequence of those impacts should they
occur. The probability of sediment impact is based on the relative reservoir
sediment volume (small, medium, or large). The relative reservoir sediment
volume is based on the ratio Ts, which represents the years of upstream sediment
supply trapped within the reservoir. The years of trapped sediment is
representative of the reservoir sediment volume and the river’s capacity to
transport it. A logarithmic scale is used to classify Ts into small (0.1 to 1 yr),
medium (1 to 10 yr), and large (greater than 10 yr) relative reservoir sediment
volumes. Potential consequences are qualitatively determined through discussions
among the project team and stakeholders and may be unique for released fine and
coarse sediment volumes within the reservoir.
The guidelines present a broad range of dam removal and sediment management
alternatives and tools for evaluating sediment-related impacts associated with
those alternatives. The recommended level of sediment investigations are
proportional to the risk of sediment impacts. Conceptual models are
recommended for every case, while more quantitative numerical modeling,
physical modeling, and field experiments are recommended for higher risk cases.
A final step is to determine if the predicted sediment impacts are tolerable to

stakeholders and decision makers. Uncertainty of key input parameters such as the
reservoir sediment volume are reviewed as part of the discussion. The
conversation should also include how potential benefits of released sediment and
long-term restoration benefits of dam removal weigh against impacts that are
potentially short-term. If predictions of sediment impacts are not tolerable, dam
removal and sediment management plan can be revised, such as phasing dam
removal to slow the rate of released sediment. Other options include mitigation
III
Executive Summary
for predicted sediment impacts such as raising levees or temporary treatment of

higher sediment concentrations. Once the sediment-related impacts are judged to
be tolerable, then the guidelines recommend the development of a monitoring and
adaptive management plan to help implement the project and inform planning of
future dam removal projects.
IV
INTRODUCTION
Dams serve many useful purposes, but with the very large number of dams in the
United States, and around the world, dams occasionally need to be removed for a
variety of reasons. When dams are removed, special consideration may be needed
for the sediments that have been trapped within their reservoirs or
impoundments 1. The potential impact of these reservoir sediments during and
after dam removal, either within the reservoir or on downstream receiving waters,
can range from negligible to very significant. Thus, management decisions
regarding those sediments are often among the most important technical
considerations for many dam removals. These guidelines propose that the level of
sediment data collection, analysis, modeling, reservoir sediment management, and
mitigation be proportional to the risk of potential impacts from the reservoir
sediment. The volume of reservoir sediment relative to the stream’s average
annual sediment load, concentration of any contaminants relative to sediment
quality guidelines, and potential downstream impacts are key parameters for
determining environmental impacts and for helping to choose a sediment
management alternative (Reclamation, 2006, Grant and Lewis, 2015, Major et al.,
2017). The guidelines incorporate options for reservoir sediment management that
allow sediments to be eroded and released downstream, stabilized in place, or
removed and relocated depending on identified risks and uncertainty.
People have been building dams for thousands of years to utilize fresh water
resources provided by rivers, streams, and lakes. The constructed dams come in a
variety of sizes, serve a variety of purposes, and have a variety of environmental
effects (Figure 1). The World Register of Dams (WRD) documents information
for large dams defined as having heights over 15 m (49 ft) (ICOLD, 2017).
Within WRD, the oldest dam noted is the Proserpina Dam in Spain, built in 130
A.D. The world’s tallest three dams are over 300 meters high - located in
Tajikistan (335 m or 1,099 ft), Iran (315 m or 1,033 ft), and China (305 m or
1,001 ft). In ancient times, dams were typically built for water supply or
irrigation. According to the World Register of Dams, irrigation remains the most
common purpose of dams worldwide. Among “single purpose dams” in WRD, 49
percent are for irrigation, 20 percent for hydropower (production of electricity),
11 percent for water supply, 9 percent for flood control, 5 percent for recreation,
less than 1 percent for navigation and fish farming, and 6 percent for other
purposes. Some dams are constructed to provide benefits for recreation, wildlife,
fishery enhancement, and sediment retention. Many dams are constructed to
provide multiple purpose benefits from their reservoirs (e.g. water supply, flood
control, hydropower, and recreation).
1
For the purposes of this document the terms reservoir and impoundment are used
interchangeably.
1
Introduction
Figure 1.—Dams exist in a wide variety of sizes and serve a wide variety of
purposes.
Dams continue to be an important part of the worldwide infrastructure with new

dams being built each year, but some dams have become obsolete. Dams built
several decades to centuries ago can have structural or recreational safety issues
or reservoirs full of sediment that impact water management operations. Dams
were also historically constructed in low population areas, but in the intervening
years as populations expanded into the country, more people today live in close
proximity or downstream of a dam, changing the amount of risk for some dams
that are aging and in need of repair. In other cases, the original purpose of the dam
is no longer needed, the dam is abandoned, no longer economical to operate, or
there may be significant environmental benefits achieved if the dam were
removed. While dams provide numerous benefits, they also alter intrinsic riverine
processes of continuity and upstream-downstream linkages involving water,
sediment, wood, nutrients, biota, and floodplains between the watershed area
upstream and downstream of the dam.
Dam removal may be a viable management option to restore lost ecosystem

processes when the operational purpose of a dam and reservoir are no longer
needed, can be met through alternative means, or the costs to address safety and
infrastructure exceed the cost of removal. For example, a pumping plant with
proper fish screens constructed along the channel margin may negate the need for
a diversion dam that impedes fish passage. Electricity generated from a
hydroelectric dam could be generated by other power plants. Structural damage
resulting from natural disasters such as flooding or earthquakes may be too costly
to repair relative to project benefits, or the structure may simply have been
abandoned and at risk for failure due to lack of maintenance. On the other hand,
2
water supply storage and flood control benefits, provided by many large dams,
would be difficult to replace if a dam were removed. In fact, very few (if any)
dams that provide significant water supply storage or flood control benefits have
been removed.
Dam removal may not always be a preferred option by some because of the
historical significance of the structure and intrinsic value to the local community
(Magilligan et al. 2017). Certain dams have historical significance and serve as
landmarks important to local residents. In other cases sediment impacts from dam
removal may be deemed unacceptable or funds may not be available to address
the impacts or cost of removal. As a result, each dam removal tends to be unique
(although there are common considerations), and decisions on their removal are
subject to individual criteria and processes. Nonetheless, in the absence of
sustainable reservoir sediment management, more dams will be removed in the
future as their reservoirs fill with sediment and then no longer provide benefits.
Case studies of dam removals over the last several decades have found that rivers
are resilient in that the sediment transport capacity of a river generally increases
in response to increases in sediment loads, such as the Elwha River in Washington
(Magirl et al. 2015). Ecosystem processes and aquatic species respond favorably
to restoring connectivity with upstream sediment, wood, and nutrient loads
(O’Connor et al. 2015). Low-head dams 2 often do not trap much sediment relative
to sediment loads of the river and their removal may only have a negligible effect
from a sediment perspective. Dam removal, and the downstream release of
reservoir sediment, can have short-term, but notable impacts on the downstream
channel and aquatic habitat. Characterizing the quantity and quality of reservoir
sediment, and expected river response as a result of dam removal, can inform the
rate and style of dam removal with consideration of potential consequences.
Possible resources and human uses that could be affected from dam removal
include the aquatic environment and river health, water quality, water use and
infrastructure (e.g. water intakes, wells), downstream channel morphology, flood
stage, and topography of the reservoir and upstream river channel (Tullos et al.
2016). Consequently, reservoir sediment management costs can be a substantial
portion of the total cost of dam removal.
These sediment analysis guidelines have been developed to provide engineers,

scientists, and resource managers with a risk-based approach for determining the
level of data collection, analysis, and modeling to evaluate a dam removal project
and the type of sediment management actions that may be needed. These
2
Definition of low-head dam from Decision Document Nationwide Permit 53: “the term low-
head dam’ is defined as a dam built across a stream to pass flows from upstream over all, or nearly
all, of the width of the dam crest on a continual and uncontrolled basis. (During a drought, there
might not be water flowing over the dam crest.) In general, a low-head dam does not have a
separate spillway or spillway gates but it may have an uncontrolled spillway. The dam crest is the
top of the dam from left abutment to right abutment, and if present, an uncontrolled spillway. A
low-head dam provides little storage function.”
3
Introduction
guidelines have been developed for a wide range of dam removals and sediment
issues. Simplified analysis procedures are recommended for dam removals with
little or no (negligible) sediment.
In addition to sediment impacts from dam removal, these guidelines may have
some applicability for the practice of passing upstream sediment loads through or
around the reservoir for long-term sustainable management.
4
DAM CONSTRUCTION AND REMOVAL

BACKGROUND
Dam construction in the United States

The earliest dam construction recorded in the National Inventory of Dams (NID)
database was in 1640—the 1.8-m high Old Oaken Bucket Pond Dam near
Scituate, Massachusetts (NID, 2013). As more settlers arrived, tens of thousands
of dams were estimated to be built in the mid-Atlantic region of the eastern
United States to support mills, forges, and other industries that needed mechanical
hydropower throughout the 17th to early 20th centuries (Merritts et al. 2013). The
height of early mill dams was often limited to the diameter of their wood water
wheels. Merritts et al. (2013) note that typical dam heights in this era were 2 to 3
m (6 to 10 ft) and built on headwater streams. Larger dams came later as the
country grew in population, required increased navigation, and expanded
agriculture into the drier western portion of the U.S. The history of federal
involvement in U.S. dam construction goes back at least to the 1820s, when the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) built wing dams to improve navigation
on the Ohio River (Billington et al. 2005). The work expanded after the Civil
War, when Congress authorized the USACE to build storage dams on the upper
Mississippi River and regulatory dams to aid navigation on the Ohio River. In
1902, when Congress established the Bureau of Reclamation (initially named the
“Reclamation Service”), the role of the federal government increased dramatically
and set the stage for large dam construction on the country’s western rivers. In
addition, numerous canal networks were established in the early 1900’s to deliver
water to newly formed irrigation districts in the west. Dams for flood control,
water supply, and recreational use were also built by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service which has constructed 11,800 dams in 47 states since 1948
(NRCS, 2017).
The USACE maintains the NID to track construction of large federal, state, and
private dams in the U.S., including information about the dam such as height, dam
type, and purpose (USACE, 2016a). The current NID, published in 2016, includes
information on 90,580 dams that are at least 7.6 m (25 feet) high with reservoir
storage capacity of at least 18,500 m3 (15 acre-ft, 50 percent of dams listed), or
are at least 1.8 m (6 ft) high and store at least 61,700 m3 (50 acre-feet) of water, or
are considered a significant or high hazard should they fail. In addition to the
90,580 dams in the NID, there are estimated to be perhaps millions of smaller
dams that do not meet the minimum height, storage, or hazard criteria to be
included in the NID. Approximately 60 percent of U.S. dams (50,000 dams) were
constructed between 1950 and 1979. The rate of dam construction documented in
the NID significantly increased in the 1950’s to 1970’s and has since slowed after
5
Dam construction and removal background
many of the prime dam sites were developed (Figure 2). Building of new dams
continues, however, as 212 new dams were constructed between 2010 and 2012
with the majority ranging between 4 to 16 m (13 to 52 ft), and five exceeding 32
m (105 ft).
20,000 1960s
18,000
16,000
Dam Height
National Inventory Dams
2013 Database
14,000
Dams built each decade
<4m
12,000 4-8 m
8-16 m
10,000
16-32 m
8,000
>32 m
6,000 All Dams
4,000
2,000
Figure 2.—The rate of dam construction peaked during the 1950s to 1970s (2013
NID).
The 90,580 dams in the NID are widely distributed throughout the United States,
with the most per state (more than 5,000) in Texas, Kansas, Missouri, and
Georgia (Figure 3). Of the dams in the inventory, fewer than 2 percent are over 30
m (100 ft) high. The current primary purposes for the U.S. dams in the NID
include recreation (28 percent), flood control (18 percent), fire protection (12
percent), irrigation (9 percent), water supply (6 percent), and hydropower (2
percent). According to the NID, Oroville Dam, on the Feather River in California,
is the tallest dam in the United States, measuring 235 m (771 ft). The dam with
the largest reservoir is Hoover Dam, on the Colorado River on the Arizona-
Nevada border, which stores approximately 37 billion m3 (30 million acre-ft) of
water. The dam that provides the most hydroelectric power capacity in the United
States is Grand Coulee Dam, on the Columbia River in Washington, which can
generate 6,180 megawatts of power.
6
Figure 3.—Spatial distribution of NID dams (2013) across the United States.
Dam removals
The rate of dam removal has been increasing notably since the 1970’s (Figure 4).
American Rivers reported that 1392 dams have been removed in the United States
between 1912 and 2016, and that the majority of the dams were removed within
the past 20 years (American Rivers, 2016). For context, the total number of
removals documented so far in the U.S. is very small compared with the total
number of dams in the U.S. The need to consider dam removal as a possible river
restoration tool is anticipated to continue in the future. Dam removal may be a
preferred alternative for cases with aging or abandoned dams with hazard issues
or intakes no longer operational due to sedimentation. It is also common for post-
industrial dams that block fish passage or have contaminated sediment. Removal
can often accomplish environmental benefits that can in part be obtained by
reconnecting the supply of sediment, wood, and nutrients to areas from the
upstream watershed to the river downstream of the dam.
7
Figure 4.—Compilation of dams removed and dams with at least one published
study on the physical or ecological river response to dam removal (a) by dam
height and (b) the cumulative number of dams removed by year (Bellmore et al.
2017, data from Bellmore et al. 2015 and American Rivers, 2014).
Dam removal of all sizes has occurred across the country, with the most dam
removals documented in Pennsylvania, the Great Lakes region, northeast, and
along the west coast (Figure 5). An interactive map with dam removal site
information within the United States is provided by American Rivers (2017).
USGS (2017a) has also developed a useful online site called the Dam Removal
Information Portal (DRIP) that provides a map-based visualization of dam
removal information and associated scientific studies. Dam removal has also
occurred in many other parts of the world (Edwards, 2015).
8
Figure 5.—Spatial distribution of dam removals within the United States (Bellmore
et al. 2017, data from Bellmore et al. 2015 and American Rivers, 2014).
The large majority of dams that have been removed (nearly 90 percent) are less
than 8 m (25 ft) tall. However, several U.S. dams were recently removed with
larger and more complex reservoir sediment volumes (Table 1). Unfortunately,
only a handful of these larger dams have scientific literature to document
sediment erosion and transport response to dam removal. Even basic
documentation on the reservoir pool is often lacking.
Table 1.—U.S. Dam Removals greater than 15 m (50 ft), sorted by dam height (American
Rivers Dam Removal Database Version 2, 11-13-2017).
Dam
Year Height
Dam Name State Removed River/Watershed (m)
Glines Canyon Dam WA 2011 Elwha River 64
Occidental Chem Pond Dam D TN 1995 Duck Creek 49
Condit Dam OR 2011 White Salmon River 38
Elwha Dam WA 2011 Elwha River 33
San Clemente Dam CA 2015 Carmel River 32
Atlas Mineral Dam UT 1994 Colorado River basin 28
Two Mile Dam NM 1994 Sante Fe River 26
Monsanto Dam #7 TN 1990 Duck River 24
Air Force Dam (Silver Lead
MI 1998 Silver Lead Creek 21
Creek Dam)
Lake Bluestem Dam KS 21
Mike Horse Dam MT 2015 Beartrap Creek 20
McMillan Dam NM 1991 Pecos River 20
Bald Knob Dam PA 2016 Potato Garden Run 20
Hunters Dam WA Hunters Creek 20
Furnace Creek Dam PA 2014 Furnace Creek 19
9
Table 1.—U.S. Dam Removals greater than 15 m (50 ft), sorted by dam height (American
Rivers Dam Removal Database Version 2, 11-13-2017).
Dam
Year Height
Dam Name State Removed River/Watershed (m)
Birch Run Dam PA 2005 Birch Run 18
Prairie Dells Dam WI 1991 Prairie River 18
Willow Falls Dam WI 1992 Willow River 18
Mounds Dam WI 1998 Willow River 18
Idylwilde Dam CO 2013 Big Thompson River 17
Indian Rock Lake Dam MO 1986 Tributary to Tyrey Creek 17
C-Lind Dam #1 CA 1993 17
Bluebird Dam CO 1990 Ouzel Creek 17
Riss East CO 2016 Four Mile 17
Grangeville Dam ID 1963 Clearwater River 17
Vaux #2 Dam MT 1995 Lone Tree Creek 17
Sweasey Dam CA 1970 Mad River 17
Oahu Reservoir 545A HI 2013 Waiawa 16
Canyon Creek Meadows Dam OR 2015 Canyon Creek 16
Monsanto Dam #4 TN 1990 Greenlick Creek 16
Tributary to Rutherford
Occidental Chem Dam #6 TN 1991 16
Creek
Lake Lehman Dam PA 2015 UNT Codorus Creek 16
Monsanto Dam #5A TN 1990 Greenlick Creek 16
Dam removal challenges

The challenges to removing a dam include making decisions related to policy,
addressing social issues related to dam removal, obtaining funding, and providing
technical information that helps inform possible management strategies (USSD,
2015). Policy decisions center on how water resources should be managed and
include legal constraints and regulatory requirements. If the dam and reservoir are
still providing benefits, then policy decisions have to be made about whether or
not those benefits will still be provided, perhaps through alternate means, or
compensated. Policy decisions may include broader resource management topics
than the benefits provided by the dams such as environmental or cultural
resources. Environmental resources may include aquatic and terrestrial organisms,
vegetation, water quality, and aesthetics. Cultural resources may include historical
or archeological assets, along with traditional cultural properties of Native
Americans. It is not uncommon for East Coast dams to be over 200 years old with
no design or construction plans and no known owner which poses a challenge to
navigating decisions on dam removal.
10
Social challenges can play an important role in how to approach the decision
whether to remove a dam. Dam operators and owners, water users, landowners
adjacent to reservoirs, and recreationalists may all have unique perspectives and
opinions about a dam and reservoir and whether removal is the best decision. An
example is the community interest in retaining the recreation provided by a
reservoir even though the dam is unsafe. In some cases, mitigation may be an
important component of dam removal discussions involving social concerns. For
example, perhaps a new greenway with bike paths, fishing access, and river raft
launch sites can be included to replace lost lake recreational opportunities.
Communication is a critical aspect to engage local partners and stakeholders and
should consider local circumstances, potential consequences, and benefits
identified with a given project. Project leaders may consider use of media outlets
such as social media, press releases, and public information meetings to facilitate
getting important messages to the public from engineers, scientists, and managers.
Non-profit organizations focused on ecosystem restoration can be a good resource
to help facilitate getting messages to the community.
Funding has to be obtained for dam removal, including the engineering and
science investigations and the permitting requirements. Decisions have to be
made on who will pay for dam removal and any compensation for lost benefits of
the dam and reservoir. Often funding is a limiting factor on whether and when a
dam removal will move forward, even when the owner and interested parties
agree to remove a dam. Many projects require supplemental funding beyond what
a dam owner can accommodate, particularly when large sediment volumes or
contaminated sediments are involved.
Technical challenges include the determinations of how to safely and efficiently

remove the dam and at what rate, how to manage stream flow during dam
removal and how to provide any required fish passage, how much of the dam and
related facilities have to be removed to achieve the policy objectives, how to
manage the reservoir sediment, and how to deal with the uncertain and changing
conditions during and shortly after the dam removal. Engineers and scientists are
often tasked with estimating the effects of dam removal, including the direction,
magnitude, and extent of the effects as well as the timing and duration of the
effects. Water and sediment will often be the primary drivers while the resources
of concern may include such things as aquatic habitat, water use (municipal,
agricultural, and industrial), recreation, flooding, cultural resources, and public
safety. As dam removal case studies continue to be documented, the knowledge
base grows, but the number of dam removals well studied is far fewer – less than
10% – than the actual number of dams that have been removed (Bellmore et al.
2017). Several conceptual, numerical, and physical models have been applied to
help inform analysis of sediment effects, but pinning down the timing of sediment
effects and the magnitude and timing of biological responses still needs
improvement (Tullos et al. 2016). Sediment quality criteria have been developed
to assess the biological relevance of contaminants, but how to translate the level
of contaminants into downstream risks remains a challenge (Evans, 2015).
11
Dam removal guidelines and resources

Because of the growing number of dam removal projects, several publications
have been written related to the general aspects of dam decommissioning or
removal:
• Guidelines for Dam Decommissioning (American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1997)
• Reservoir Sedimentation Handbook, Chapter 17 ̶ Decommissioning of
Dams (Morris and Fan, 1997)
• Dam Removal - A New Option for a New Century (Aspen Institute, 2002) ̶
focus on policy decisions related to dam removal
• Dam Removal: Science and Decision Making (H. John Heinz III Center
for Science, Economics and the Environment, 2002) ̶ documents the
results of panel findings on small dam removals and a guideline on how to
blend science into the dam removal decision-making process
• Dam Removal Research Status and Prospects (H. John Heinz III Center
for Science, Economics and the Environment, 2003) ̶ documents a
workshop on science and state of knowledge of dam removal through a
series of papers on research, physical processes, policy, social
perspectives, economics, and ecology
• A summary of existing research on low-head dam removal projects,
prepared for American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (ICF Consulting, 2005)
• Dam Decommissioning Chapter of the Erosion and Sedimentation Manual
(U.S. Department of the Interior, Reclamation, 2006)
• Data needs and case study assessment for dam fate determination and
removal projects (Conyngham, 2009)
• DAM_Explorer: A modeling framework for assessing the physical
response of streams to dam removal (Conyngham and Wallen, 2009)
• The Challenges of Dam Removal and River Restoration (De Graff and
Evans, 2013)
• Guidelines for Dam Decommissioning Projects (USSD, 2015) ̶ Provides
an overview of the engineering aspects of dam removal based on
information from numerous case studies.
• Removing Small Dams – A Basic Guide for Project Managers (American

Rivers, 2015)
• Exploring Dam Removal (American Rivers and Trout Unlimited, 2002)
12
• Frequently asked questions on removal of obsolete dams (U.S. EPA,

2016)
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-04
(USACE, 2005): Guidance on the Discharge of Sediments From or
Through a Dam and the Breaching of Dams, for Purposes of Section 404
of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Decision Document Nationwide Permit 53
for the removal of low-head dams (USACE, 2016b).
Several state guidelines for dam removal projects are also available:
• Massachusetts Dam Removal and the Wetland Regulations
(Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 2007)
• A Guide of Project Proponents: Developing Sediment Management Plans
for Dam Removal Projects in Massachusetts (Massachusetts Division of
Ecological Restoration and Department of Environmental Protection, draft
in progress)
• Michigan Dam Removal Guidelines for Owners (Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, April 2004)
• Guidelines to the Regulatory Requirements for Dam Removal Projects in
New Hampshire (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services,
Revised 2007)
• Dam Removal and Barrier Mitigation in New York State (New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, 2017)
• Small Dam Removal in Oregon – A guide for Project Managers (Hay,
2008)
• Texas Dam Removal Guidelines (Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, September 2006)
• Weir removal, lowering and modification: A review of best practice
(Elbourne et al. 2013)
Two databases for dam removal have been developed that provide case study
information:
1. DRIP: As part of an interdisciplinary working group on dam removal at

the U.S. Geological Survey, John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and
Synthesis (Powell Center), reports and a database was developed that
identifies scientific publications relevant to the emerging field of dam
removal science (Bellmore et al. 2015). The database is updated and
visualized at DRIP (USGS, 2017a).
13
2. Clearinghouse for Dam Removal Information: Database hosted by the

University of California at Riverside (2017) that provides dam removal
project metadata.
14
SEDIMENT GUIDELINES OVERVIEW

In addition to the existing guidance and literature, the U.S. Subcommittee on
Sedimentation recognized the need for technical guidelines addressing sediment
analysis for dam removal investigations. Dam removal often includes a wide
range of activities related to sediment data collection and analysis. Sediment
management decisions related to dam removal are also varied. Stakeholders,
regulating agencies, and technical staff may have varying thresholds on what
constitutes significant sediment impacts, and what level of information is needed
to make decisions regarding sediment management.
Guidelines objective
The objective of these guidelines is to assist engineers and scientists, who
generally understand physical river processes, with determining the level of
sediment data collection, analysis, modeling, and management necessary to plan
and implement dam removal projects using a risk-based approach.
Guidelines applicability
The guidelines are written for a technical audience with a general knowledge of
river hydraulics and sedimentation processes, but may also serve as a reference
and communication tool for scoping discussions with resource managers,
permitting staff, and stakeholders. Special sections are provided to help the
guideline user in cases where there is potential for contaminants to be above
concentrations of management concern (e.g. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals, and certain pesticides if their
presence is suspected). The guidelines approach may also be applicable for
evaluating sediment management for sustainability or reservoir sediment response
to operational drawdowns (possibly due to climate change or infrastructure
maintenance activities). Dam safety programs may also find the guidelines useful
for evaluating sediment response and potential consequences to unplanned, rapid
dam failure events.
Guidelines development
The guidelines were developed through a combination of technical workshops,
individual efforts, and feedback from technical venues. Much of the development
of the core guidelines ideas occurred at two interdisciplinary workshops held in
Portland, Oregon in 2008 and in State College, Pennsylvania in 2009 (Figure 6).
The various specialties represented at these workshops included engineers,
15
Sediment guidelines overview
modelers, hydrologists, geomorphologists, geologists, biologists, physical

scientists, ecologists, water quality specialists, and resource managers from
governmental agencies (federal, tribal, state), university, non-profits, and private
consultants. Workshop participants provided a range of dam removal projects that
varied in sediment volume and varying landscape settings within the United
States for testing the guidelines.
The guidelines were also presented at technical venues with dam removal themed
sessions to get input from peers including the 2009 American Geophysical Union
Conference (California), 2010 and 2015 Federal Interagency Sedimentation
Conferences (Nevada), the 2011 U.S. Society of Dams Conference, the 2011
National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration (Maryland), webinars to federal
scientists and resource managers in 2015 and 2016, a dam removal workshop
organized by the U.S. Society of Dams in November 2015 (California), and the
7th Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) World
Congress/SETAC North America 37th Annual Meeting in 2016 (Florida).
Figure 6.—Workshop group discussions and field visits to assist with dam removal
guidelines development.
16
Using risk to guide level of investigation

This guidance focuses on the tasks needed to conduct a risk assessment of
sediment issues at proposed dam removal sites. The engineer or scientist may ask
“What is the predicted fate of the reservoir sediment if dam removal occurs?”
However the resource manager, regulator, or stakeholder may be asking – “Will
the released sediment cause any harm or increased costs and for how long?”
Combining these questions to understand how the river will handle the sediment
and if any resources will be impacted during its journey downstream help us
determine what level of investment is needed to understand sediment effects from
dam removal. The level of data collection and analysis selected for a dam removal
project is recommended to be, initially, a function of the level of risk associated
with the sediment impacts. Identifying risk is intended to be a qualitative
evaluation in collaboration with technical experts, stakeholders and resource
managers.
The risk is defined as the product of the probability (e.g.

likelihood) of a sediment impact and the magnitude of the
resulting consequences.
The greater the risk, the greater the recommended level of

sediment data collection, analysis, modeling, and
management.
The use of risk assessment is consistent with a long history of risk assessment
science as a basis for decision-support and risk management (NRC 1983, 1996,
2009). This sediment evaluation guideline links to the ecological risk assessment
framework developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others,
and their resources can be consulted for additional detail on terminology and best
practices (U.S. EPA, 1992 and 1998, Suter, 2006). However, in many cases,
formal risk assessments are not required and a more informal evaluation of risk
can provide sufficient information to make decisions, at a fraction of the costs of a
formal risk assessment.
The sediment guidelines were also informed by the Bureau of Reclamation (2017)
approach to risk analysis that has been utilized as the primary support for dam
safety decision-making since 2000. The Bureau of Reclamation risk approach to
dam safety relies on a balance of engineering judgment and calculations to
estimate potential failure modes to "build the case" for what is influencing the
risks the most. In the context of managing dam and levee safety, life safety is
paramount, with significant economic and environmental consequences as
additional considerations (Reclamation and USACE, 2015). The approach also
allows risk analysis to be conducted at different levels, from screening level
analyses performed by an individual (with peer review) to full-blown facilitated
team risk analyses.
17
Application of guidelines
The results of the risk assessment of potential sediment impacts can then be used
to inform how to manage the risk of predicted sediment impacts through
discussions with project decision makers, regulators, and stakeholders. The
management of risk associated with sediment can be addressed during dam
removal through sediment management plans and dam removal timing, with
predam removal mitigation measures, and with adaptive management that utilizes
real-time monitoring and analysis.
APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES
Application of these guidelines to dam removal cases includes ten steps guided by
the magnitude of relative reservoir sediment volume (Figure 7). The relative
reservoir sediment volume represents the number of years of sediment load stored
in the reservoir, which is then interpreted to be the probability of reservoir
sediment impact (see Step 4) used in the risk calculation (see Step 5). A
streamlined, simplified procedure is recommended for cases with little or no
sediment, noted as negligible sediment (see next section of the guidelines).
Guideline Steps
1. Identify sediment concerns
2. Collect reservoir and river data
3. Evaluate potential for contaminated sediment
4. Determine relative reservoir sediment volume and probability of impact
5. Refine potential sediment consequences and estimate risk
6. Develop dam removal and sediment management alternative
7. Conduct sediment analysis based on risk
8. Assess uncertainty
9. Determine if sediment impacts are tolerable and, if needed, modify
sediment management plan
10. Develop monitoring and adaptive management plan
The guideline steps can be applied in an iterative approach. Initially, some

assumptions may have to be made when applying the guidelines, but these
assumptions can be updated as more information becomes available. First, apply
the guidelines with readily available information and develop the initial scope of
sediment data collection, synthesis, analysis, and risk assessment. Even if a dam
removal or sediment management plan has already been selected, assuming full,
rapid dam removal combined with a river erosion option will provide a valuable
18
baseline for comparison of predicted impacts from other alternatives. By this

methodology, many possible impact questions may be generated in the first
iteration with an order of magnitude estimate of sediment impacts (e.g. what is a
big deal versus no big deal). The initial possible impacts list is likely to greatly
shrink with this first iteration so that a smaller subset is brought forward into
subsequent iterations.
Once more detailed data and predictions become available, go back through the
guidelines and re-evaluate the questions posed at each analysis step. This iterative
approach to utilizing the guidelines should be employed whenever new
information becomes available. Once the analysis level is complete, make one
additional pass through the guidelines to determine whether recommendations of
mitigation, monitoring, and adaptive management of sediment related processes
from dam removal are warranted.
19
Figure 7.—Sediment analysis steps for dam removal.
Understand project objectives

Before embarking on scoping the sediment analysis, it is important to identify
why the dam (or group of dams) is being considered for removal and what is
hoped to be achieved by its removal. Establish how success will be measured,
including any project performance expectations both during and after dam
20
removal. For some cases, the objectives and expectations may be well
documented and there may be consensus among stakeholders regarding these
objectives. However, for other cases, the project objectives may not be fully or
clearly defined and different stakeholders may have different objectives. In some
cases, the objectives may not be fully or clearly defined because the project
proponents are not aware of what can actually be achieved within available
budgets. Information from engineers and scientists on what can be achieved can
help the project proponents define the measureable objectives, but the objectives
are largely a policy decision rather than a technical decision.
A list of questions to consider, with some example answers, is provided below to

help the technical team identify the dam history, dam removal objectives, and
potential sediment impact concerns related to reservoir sediment management.
• Who is the present owner and operator of the dam and associated
facilities?
• How was the dam constructed and when? Has it ever been rebuilt?
o Records on dam design and construction may be kept by the owner
and also by local historical societies and described in old newspaper
stories.
• What were the original and present purposes of the dam and reservoir? Is
there still a need for these purposes and, if so, can these purposes be
achieved through other means?
o A water diversion dam replaced with a pumping plant or an infiltration
gallery.
o Hydroelectric power replaced by power from other existing power
plants that feed into the electrical grid.
• Why is the dam being considered for removal?

o Improve fish (or other aquatic species) and boat passage
o Eliminate dam safety hazard
o Improve hydraulic connectivity of ecosystem features upstream and
downstream of the dam
o Dam operations and repair costs are too expensive (i.e. economic
decision)
o Dam facilities are no longer needed or have been abandoned by owner
o Permit or license expiration
o Lost function of the reservoir due to sedimentation
21
• How will success be measured?

o Restoration of natural flow regime (e.g. percent of year or percent of
total annual flow restored by removing dam)
o Reduction in temperature impacts from dam operations (e.g. improved
temperature conditions from restoring natural flow connectivity to
upstream river)
o Increase in riverine habitat in former reservoir (e.g. length of channel
including tributaries that meet potential habitat criteria, area of riparian
forest formed in former reservoir for wildlife)
o Restoration of sediment and wood loads to the downstream river (e.g.
percent of watershed upstream of dams reconnected)
o Improvement in habitat suitability for aquatic and riparian species
throughout a target river reach (e.g. length of downstream channels
with improved conditions)
o Increase in aquatic species populations upstream from dam (e.g. length
of channel opened up that meets potential habitat criteria,
o Demonstration of safe boat passage (e.g. no remnant metal or debris
o Demonstration of improved fish passage (e.g. meets velocity and depth
requirements for passage throughout former dam and reservoir without
barriers from exposed infrastructure or remnant boulders)
o Elimination of dam safety hazard (e.g. unsafe infrastructure or hazards
removed)
o Net decrease in operations and maintenance costs
o Eliminate liability
o Increased river recreation (e.g. length of new hiking trails along former
reservoir, length of river rafting available, number of fishing access
points, area of new park open to public)
o Restoration of cultural sites inundated by former reservoir
Establish communication plan

A communication plan is essential to facilitate gathering of information, provide a
forum to discuss key decisions, and engage the technical team with important
partners, regulators, and stakeholders. Frequent and open communication between
the dam owner, contractors, engineers, scientists, and stakeholders is essential to
identify concerns and benefits and to maximize the likelihood of success.
Communication plans identify who is involved and their role in the project, along
with establishing mechanisms to share information and gather input. The
communication plan should address the following questions:
22
• Who are the decision makers and what role will they play?
o Dam owners
o Facility operators
o Land use managers
o Federal, Native American, state agencies, or local government
o Project managers
• Who will likely fund the project?

• Who are the stakeholders and how will information be conveyed to them
and when?
o Dam owners
o Hydropower or water diversion users of dam facility
o Federal, Native American, state agencies, or local government
o Local government (county and city)
o Landowners in reservoir impact area (may include river reach
upstream of reservoir) and in downstream river
o Water users
o Private citizens
o Recreation community
o Local businesses
o Non-governmental organizations (e.g. The Nature Conservancy,
American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, Friends of the Earth)
• Who will comprise the project team and how will findings be conveyed
to other groups in the communication plan?
o Engineer
o Geomorphologist and/or geologist
o Botanist
o Water quality specialist
o Fish and wildlife biologist
o Ecologist
o Economist
o Cultural resource specialist
o Construction specialist
o Cost estimator
o Legal advisor
23
• Who will the dam removal contractor be and how and when will they be
engaged?
o Engaging an experienced contractor early in the dam removal decision

making process can help inform how to remove the dam most
efficiently and cost effectively.
o Communicate expectations for completion of construction activities
and metrics for project success such as was the desired riverbed
elevation achieved or fish passage barriers removed.
o Identify construction manager to facilitate interaction with other teams
• What types of time sensitive, critical information need to be conveyed

during dam removal?
o Altered flow or sediment releases during dam removal

o Emergency notifications
o Blasting or construction activities that may cause noise disturbance or
unsafe conditions at the dam site, former reservoir, or in the
downstream river
o Traffic disruptions, including any haul and disposal routes
• What information needs to be conveyed to the general public and in what

forums?
o Community forums or town halls
o Media releases including social media
o Websites with pertinent information
o Public education opportunities
o Schedules and any required road detours
o Closure of recreation areas or access points
o Emergency notifications
• How will land access be authorized to collect reservoir and river data
before, during, and after dam removal?
24
Establishing a sediment analysis team

For a given dam removal, a team should be established to apply the sediment
analysis guidelines and evaluate potential sediment impacts from dam removal.
The recommended expertise and complexity of the team depends on the relative
reservoir sediment volume and the potential risks of sediment impacts (Table 2).
As the relative reservoir sediment volume and potential risk of impacts increases,
the recommended amount of expertise also increases. If there is a substantial
amount of uncertainty in the relative sediment volume or potential risks, it may be
worth investing in multiple, independent estimates from different methods or
entities. If there is a risk that contaminated sediment may be present, expertise in
sediment toxicology and water quality should be included on the team. The
expertise of the team may need to be tailored based on the sizes of sediment
present in the reservoir, sediment quality, and based on the potential impacts to
human health, ecosystem, and infrastructure. Inter-disciplinary teams are often
utilized to evaluate impacts of concern with added expertise from ecologists,
fisheries scientists, or natural resource specialists for ecosystem effects, water
supply designers for intake modifications, or water quality specialists to evaluate
contaminants.
Table 2.—Recommended expertise for the sediment analysis team.

Sediment Recommended Expertise
Impact Risk
(defined in
Step 5)
Negligible Engineers or scientists conducting the planning study should have
general knowledge of river hydraulics, sediment processes, and
geomorphology.
Small or The sediment analysis and planning study should be conducted by
moderate engineers or scientists who have expertise with river hydraulics,
sediment transport, and geomorphology. Water quality expertise is
required for contaminant assessment. Ecologists, biologists, and/or
natural resource expertise should be represented to assess sediment
impacts.
High The sediment analysis and planning study should be conducted by
engineers and scientists who have expertise and experience with river
hydraulics, sediment transport, and geomorphology and have experience
with other dam removal projects. Water quality expertise is required for
contaminant analysis. Ecologists, biologists, and/or natural resource
expertise should be represented to assess sediment impacts.
Review Permit Requirements

The release of reservoir sediment will require application and approval of permits
that may be issued by federal, state, tribal, or local governments. The following
agencies typically handle permits:
o Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for dams with hydroelectric

power plants
25
Cases of “negligible” reservoir sediment
o USACE for Clean Water Act Section 404 permit to discharge dredged
or fill material into waters of the United States and the state agency
responsible for issuing water quality certifications and permits
(Sections 401 and 402)
o Environmental Protection Agency for actions affecting air quality
(Clean Air Act)
o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service for actions affecting threatened and endangered species
(Endangered Species Act)
o Tribal governments and the Bureau of Indian Affairs for actions
affecting Native Americans
o State water resource agency having regulatory authority over dams or
ordinary high water in river corridors.
o Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to address changes
to floodway and floodplain
o State fish and wildlife agency
o Public utilities, local landowners, and other stakeholders
o County or city governments may require a demolition permit and
regulate the transportation and disposal of waste materials
o Tribal and Federal agencies managing any historical or cultural
assessments at the site
CASES OF “NEGLIGIBLE” RESERVOIR SEDIMENT

For cases where there is little or no reservoir sediment behind a dam (negligible
volume), there is no need for extensive sediment data collection and analysis. This
section describes how to verify if the sediment volume is “negligible” with
minimal to no risk of inducing sediment-related impacts. If the sediment volume
is verified to be negligible, the design team can focus on structural and river
hydraulic issues related to removing the dam rather than on assessing sediment
impacts. Reservoir impoundments with little or no sediment are typically behind
low-head dams that are operated as run-of-the river facilities (i.e., no regular
drawdown of reservoir storage for water supply or flood control).
For the purposes of these guidelines - a negligible reservoir sediment volume is

less than 0.1 (10 percent) of the average annual sediment load entering the
reservoir. Stream flows would be expected to rapidly erode and transport such a
negligible reservoir sediment volume. Since computation of the average annual
sediment load can require considerable effort, an alternative procedure is provided
specifically for negligible cases that compares the reservoir sediment volume with
typical alluvial channel dimensions.
26
First, estimate the reservoir sedimentation volume by probing of the reservoir

sediment to the predam surface and/or underwater dive inspections to develop a
map of sediment thickness (see Step 2b). Historical information and local
knowledge is often helpful to verify the reservoir sediment volume. Historic dam
operations and upstream land use may provide clues as to how much or how little
sediment may be in the reservoir.
Next, compare the reservoir sediment volume to sediment storage features

commonly see on the river, such as sand and gravel bars or other depositional
features. These features can have a plan area similar to the river width squared
and have a depth similar to the bank full depth. Therefore, the criteria for
negligible reservoir sediment volume can be written as:
𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 < 𝑊𝑊𝐵𝐵 2 𝐷𝐷𝐵𝐵 (1)
Where WB is the average bankfull channel width and DB is the average bankfull
channel depth in a nearby alluvial reach of the stream that is not significantly
influenced by structures, tributary confluences, or other dams.
If the reservoir sediment volume is less than the volume of a sand or gravel bar as
defined by equation 1, then conduct a few checks to help verify that the volume is
negligible.
• The hydraulic height of the dam (reservoir water surface elevation minus
the downstream river water surface elevation) would typically be smaller
than the depth of a deep river pool at the bankfull discharge in a nearby
river reach with a similar geomorphic setting. The selected river reach
should be not significantly influenced by tributary flows between the reach
and reservoir impoundment.
• A longitudinal profile plot of the reservoir thalweg (lowest point of a cross
section) should be compared with the longitudinal channel profiles of the
upstream and downstream river channels. The profile plots should include
both the water surface and channel bottom along the upstream and
downstream channel and through the reservoir impoundment. If little or no
reservoir sediment is present, then the bottom profile through the reservoir
should not be significantly elevated above the slope of the river channel
thalweg. In some cases, a thin layer of fine sediment may be present along
the reservoir bottom. Fine or coarse sediment may be trapped only within
a former pool of the predam reservoir bottom profile or form a short ramp
immediately upstream of the dam.
The removal of Gold Hill Dam in Oregon is an example case study with
negligible sediment (see Example Case Studies). This was a low-head dam that
was operated as run-of-the river. The reservoir sediment volume was less than the
volume of a gravel bar, less than 10% of the average annual sediment load, and
did not significantly alter the longitudinal profile of the riverbed. The ratio of the
reservoir sediment volume to the average annual sediment load was 0.005 yr
27
Cases of “negligible” reservoir sediment
which is less than 0.1 and satisfies the negligible relative reservoir sediment
volume criteria.
If the reservoir sediment is determined to be negligible, then the guideline user

may skip the remainder of the guidelines and proceed with dam removal planning.
The project may be eligible for nationwide permit 53 from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (2016). “Because the removal of the low-head dam will result in a
net increase in ecological functions and services provided by the stream, as a
general rule compensatory mitigation is not required for activities authorized by”
Nationwide Permit 53. “However, the district engineer may determine for a
particular low-head dam removal activity that compensatory mitigation is
necessary to ensure the authorized activity results in no more than minimal
adverse environmental effects.”
Determination of negligible sediment assumes any presence of contaminants is

small enough to not pose any risks from downstream release to human health or
ecological resources. If the reservoir sediment volume is greater than negligible,
or if contaminants are present and thought to be harmful, then the guideline user
should apply the full guidelines starting with Step 1.
28
STEP 1: IDENTIFY SEDIMENT CONCERNS AND

BENEFITS
In this first step, the project objectives, communication, concerns, and benefits
need to be identified to properly scope the data collection and analysis. For
example, project objectives for dam removal done primarily for dam safety can be
quite different than those where dam removal is to improve fish passage.
Communication with stakeholders is necessary to identify concerns and benefits.
A conceptual model helps inform identification of concerns and benefits from
release of sediment during dam removal.
Step 1a: Develop initial conceptual model

To identify which sediment concerns apply for a given dam removal site, an
initial conceptual model based on readily available information may be useful.
Readily available information at this stage may be as simple as observations of
reservoir and downstream river conditions from a site visit, aerial photograph
comparisons, and previously developed topographic maps. The conceptual model
should describe how the reservoir landscape may respond to dam removal and an
estimate of how far upstream the erosion may extend. The conceptual model
should also describe the potential downstream fate of eroded reservoir sediment
by size class. In this first step, the conceptual model can simply assume the dam
removal is rapid, meaning that the conceptual model does not have to include the
period of time of actual dam removal. The conceptual model will later be
expanded with more detail regarding sediment erosion and transport processes in
Step 7, using information gathered in Step 2. Using the conceptual model as a
guide to potential locations and timing of sediment impacts, the following
questions can help guidelines users identify potential sediment concerns. If there
is potential for contaminants, the conceptual model should also include potential
sources at the dam site or upstream and potential pathways for transporting
contaminants and receptors of concern in the downstream environment.
Step 1b: identify sediment concerns

Concerns may be related to the amount of sediment released, the timing of
sediment released, physical or chemical properties of material released, possible
contaminants released, or duration of impacts. Stakeholders may be concerned
about sediment impacts in the reservoir, downstream channel, and/or receiving
waters. Document local sediment concerns after reviewing the following lists of
possible impacts with stakeholders. The number of different impacts could range
from very few to many and would typically increase with increases in reservoir
sediment volume.
29
Step 1: identify sediment concerns and benefits
Sediment impact concerns within the reservoir and upstream

river reach
• Aesthetics of future landscape after dam removal

• Speed at which future reservoir landscape will revegetate and become
more stable
• Invasive vegetation establishing on newly exposed landscape after dam
removal
• Chronic reservoir sediment erosion for several years post-dam removal
• Potential for hillslope failure and bank erosion during or following
reservoir drawdown that could endanger infrastructure, roads, recreation
access points, impact land use functions, or human safety
• Impacts to cultural or historical resources from the possible erosion,
exposure, or burial of cultural properties
• Reduced water level and yield for wells and water intakes associated with
the reservoir (related to extent of reservoir drawdown)
• Reduced capacity of wells impacted by reservoir drawdown
• Temporary or permanent loss of recreation activities in the reservoir and
downstream river channel
• Knickpoint migration endangering upstream infrastructure such as bridge
piers, culverts, utility crossings, or property that may be at risk from
undermining or bank erosion
• Stranding of fish during reservoir drawdown
• Erosion of spawning areas upstream of the reservoir during or after
drawdown
• New access upstream or downstream past dam site by aquatic invasive
species
• Odor of exposed organics in exposed sediment
• Increased mosquito or insect populations once reservoir is drawn down
• Trash or numerous mill logs remaining in former reservoir once drawn
down
30
Sediment impact concerns in the downstream river
• Possible release of contaminants during reservoir sediment erosion

• Deteriorated water quality due to increased suspended sediment levels or
contaminants that could impact drinking water, cost of water treatment, or
aquatic species (mussels, fish, etc.)
• Increased sediment concentration in diverted water that can lead to
sedimentation in pipelines and canals
• Reduced permeability and capacity in wells due to fine sediment
deposition along the river channel and floodplain
• Sediment deposition or burial at downstream water diversion structures,
effluent or drainage outfalls
• Significant sediment deposition leading to increased flood stage and
ground water levels in downstream river that would put land or
infrastructure at risk such as levees, bridges, or culverts
• Increased streambank erosion and channel widening that would result in
loss of land or infrastructure (e.g., levees, bridges)
• Burial of downstream aquatic spawning, rearing, and holding areas for
threatened or endangered species or species of concern
• Burial of downstream aquatic species that cannot find refuge or quickly
mobilize out of sediment impact areas (mussels, invertebrates, etc.)
• Increased deposition in floodplains that could result in change in riparian
vegetation when existing species are not tolerant of burial
• Change in aesthetics of river landscape or water color
• Increased wood loads that could block culverts or impact conveyance
through bridge openings
• Burial or erosion of recreational use areas including boat ramps,
swimming areas, beaches, campgrounds, fishing areas, docks, and
moorings
• Increased sediment loads from legacy sediments that may have been
deposited during periods of excessive landscape erosion due to land use
impacts (see Appendix A)
• Increased exposure to ice jams whose impact are currently mitigated by
the dam and reservoir
31
Step 1: identify sediment concerns and benefits
Sediment impact concerns in the downstream receiving waters

(e.g. lakes, marine environment)
• Deteriorated water quality due to increased suspended sediment levels or

contaminants that could impact aquatic species (mussels, fish, etc.).
• Increased nutrient and pollutant loads in downstream bays or estuaries
where released sediment deposits
• Sediment burial of aquatic habitat in the estuary or near-shore zones for
threatened or endangered species or species of concern
• Sediment deposition blocking aquatic species migration routes
• Expansion of estuary channels leading to channel widening and increased
streambank erosion that would result in loss of land or infrastructure
• Sedimentation in downstream reservoirs
• Deposition along recreational use areas including navigation channels at
the river mouth and fishing or harvest areas
• Increased deposition at or near river mouth affecting coastal seawalls,
jetties, and docks
• Deposition at coast exasperating tidal inundation of coastal roads or
infrastructure
Step 1c: identify benefits from sediment release

While release of sediment may have temporary adverse impacts, restoration of
sediment loads to downstream river reaches often initiate positive long-term
ecosystem responses. Step 1c provides an opportunity to frame a discussion on
weighing the impacts of sediment release against the benefits. A few examples of
potential benefits from dam removal and sediment release are listed below:
• Restoration of riverine habitat in reservoir area

• Restoration of heterogeneous grain sizes and sediment bars that support
development of more diverse channel processes such as channel migration
• Increase in physical habitat features that provide ecosystem benefits, such
as channel spawning gravels, bars, islands, large wood features, and side
channel activation
• Facilitate growth of invertebrate communities
• Natural disturbance and sedimentation required for riparian vegetation
• Replenishment of sediment sources to coastal beaches at the mouths of
rivers potentially reversing erosion
32
• Positive benefits to estuary ecosystem

• Turbidity may benefit certain species by providing protection from
predators (e.g. humpback chub and razorback sucker on Colorado River
native)
• Sedimentation may help reconnect floodplains where lack of sediment
supply has caused incision
• Connectivity of nutrients and organic matter (vegetation and all sizes of
woody material) from upper watershed can be restored
• Restoration of the floodplain and of sediment bars for wildlife use
• Enhanced river recreation opportunities
• Less chance of uncontrolled flow releases
33
STEP 2: COLLECT RESERVOIR AND RIVER DATA

To determine the probability of sediment impacts in Step 4, baseline data are
needed to estimate the reservoir sediment volume, sediment gradation and spatial
distribution, and whether contaminants are present. Several questions have been
created to help guide this initial data gathering for a dam removal study. The
guideline’s user should synthesize existing information to help answer the
questions and determine if there is enough information to move forward with the
guidelines steps (Step 2a), and supplement with reservoir and river data collection
where data gaps exist (Steps 2b and 2c). Initially, assumptions can be made where
information is sparse, but these assumptions must be verified later. New field data
are typically collected in more detail to fill in possible gaps in the existing data
and to verify previous assumptions. The reservoir sediment volume, grain size
characterization, and bulk density surveys should be coordinated when possible
for efficiency and improved characterization. For example, if coring is utilized to
determine sediment thickness, then cores could also be sampled for grain size and
analyzed for bulk density concurrently. For the purposes of this document
sediment is categorized as either fine (silt and clay) or coarse (sand, gravel, and
cobble).
Step 2a: compile and synthesize available

information
Many projects have a wealth of available information and resources that should be
compiled and synthesized. Step 2a includes compiling existing data, conducting a
site reconnaissance, and developing a conceptual site diagram of sediment
sources, sediment concerns, and potential data collection needs. While reviewing
historical reports for the site, look for reservoir sedimentation studies or
bathymetric survey reports that document reservoir topography, reservoir
sediment gradation, and deposition patterns within the reservoir. A potential
resource for federal reservoirs is the RESSED database (Subcommittee on
Sedimentation, 2013).
Conduct site reconnaissance

The site reconnaissance should document physical conditions for the reservoir,
upstream river, and downstream river areas of interest including:
• Spatial extent of reservoir sedimentation both laterally and upstream
• Qualitative probing of reservoir sediment to estimate potential grain sizes
present or various geophysical techniques
• Vegetation and large wood presence in the reservoir
35
Step 2: collect reservoir and river data
• Geomorphic setting of the reservoir

• Geologic controls along the reservoir (e.g. constrictions, bedrock, terraces)
• Infrastructure and land use along the reservoir
• Tributary confluences within the reservoir
• Old infrastructure that may be partially buried or located along the
reservoir
• Sediment and wood sources and depositional features upstream from the
reservoir delta
• Assess the reaches of concern downstream of the dam
o Depositional zones with relatively lower transport capacity such as
inlets to natural or dammed lakes
o Reaches that have relatively wide floodplains and sediment storage
potential
o Tributary junctions and relative flow and sediment contributions
o Confluences with a downstream river
o Infrastructure built on low-level floodplains
o Areas containing bridges, levees, recreation use
o Reaches with water intakes or effluent outfalls
o Estuary and coastal zones expected to have new deposition
o Marinas or docks
Develop conceptual diagram

Early in the process of dam removal it is often useful to develop a working
diagram of the project site (sediment sources) and potential areas of concern for
sediment impacts (see Step 1). This diagram can help communicate information to
stakeholders, permitting agencies, and decision makers on where the sediment
originates and how it may interact with downstream reaches of interest. The
diagram can also be utilized to identify proposed data collection locations for Step
2 where gaps and uncertainties need to be addressed. The diagram can be
generated as a table, a graphical image from a longitudinal perspective along the
river corridor, or a watershed perspective. The complexity of the conceptual
diagram should be proportional to the risk of sediment impacts, and may be
iterative as more information is gathered throughout the project.
In addition to the conceptual diagram, there should be a narrative synthesis of

existing information and data gathered during reconnaissance field trip. The
purpose of synthesis is to (1) develop a good understanding of how the entire
catchment has physically changed (river planform, incision, etc.) from pre-
36
disturbance conditions; (2) how the river reach is functioning geomorphically

with the dam in place; and (3) how the river reach may respond geomorphically
once the dam is removed. The river reach should include the channel upstream
from the reservoir area to the downstream limit of possible impacts.
Wildman and MacBroom (2010) developed a classification system for dam

removals that can help predict the nature of the reservoir landscape post dam
removal, along with a qualitative assessment of potential downstream sediment
impacts. Data needed to apply the classification system include the relative
amount of reservoir sediment (minimal versus significant), reservoir width
relative to a typical river channel width, whether or not there is a highly defined
legacy (predam) channel, the reservoir sediment grain sizes (fine or coarse), and if
the fine reservoir sediment is cohesive. Gaps in data can be addressed when
undertaking Steps 2b and 2c.
Describe the dam history and site conditions

A list of questions is provided below to help engineers and scientists learn about
the dam’s history, reservoir operations, and watershed and stream channel. The
level of effort needed to answer these questions depends on the size and
complexity of the project. At a minimum, each question should be answered with
a sentence or short paragraph or note that the question is not applicable for the
specific project. Potential sources of historical information include: ground
photographs or postcards (local museums, dam owners, and dam operators),
design drawings, log books of reservoir operations for the project, aerial
photographs, topographic maps, and other data of the project area that document
the project history. Technical reports describing the dam may be found from
government agencies, consultants, universities, or dam operators and owners.
• What is the hydraulic height and crest length of the dam?

o Dimensions of the dam can be obtained from design drawings, but can
also be obtained by direct measurement in the field. The hydraulic
height is the difference between the normal reservoir pool elevation
and the downstream river water surface during the mean discharge.
The hydraulic height is usually less than the structural height. (If a
dam were built on a bedrock waterfall, the hydraulic height could be
greater than the structural height.) The structural height of a dam
includes the foundation and portions above the reservoir water surface.
Dam foundations are often keyed into bedrock. Removal of the
foundation below bedrock is normally not needed to restore the
hydraulic function of the stream channel. However, construction
requirements should specify that any remaining portions of the dam
foundation should not pose a public safety hazard or, where applicable,
impede fish passage.
37
• Has the reservoir pool been lowered or raised in the past (e.g. use of stop
logs, flashboards, low-level outlets)?
• What is the type of dam to be removed (e.g. concrete, earth, rock, or

masonry; gravity, arch, or buttress)?
• What type of topography was the dam located on? (e.g. narrow bedrock
canyon, wide river valley, natural lake)
• Was any natural ground excavated to create a reservoir pool or enlarge an

existing lake?
• If a dam was constructed to enlarge a natural lake, was an outlet created to

drain the lake below the natural outlet elevation?
• Were the vegetation and stumps cleared prior to reservoir filling?
• Was the dam rebuilt at any time in the past? Is there a cofferdam still
located upstream of the dam? Did the dam inundate a previous dam?
Describe reservoir sedimentation and operations history

Sometimes the purpose and function of a dam and reservoir evolve since the time
of dam construction. For example, dams constructed to serve an abandoned
industry such as the old saw mills in Maine. A change in operational practices
(e.g. reservoir pool level and range in fluctuation) can affect the sediment trap
efficiency and the sedimentation volume and spatial distribution. For example,
reservoir sediment trap efficiency would be less if a dam had sluice gates that are
normally used to pass sediment downstream or if the reservoir were frequently
drawn to a low pool elevation. Conversely, the reservoir sediment trap efficiency
would be higher if the reservoir was normally kept full and the dam did not have,
or utilize, sluice gates. The following questions can improve understanding of
temporal changes in reservoir sedimentation.
• What are the normal operations of the reservoir pool?

o Run-of-the river operation where reservoir outflow equals the inflow
and the reservoir pool water surface is maintained at a constant
elevation. Under this type of operation, sediment tends to accumulate
over time, to the maximum extent possible, without erosion due to
reservoir drawdown. Run-of-the river operations could apply to dams
of any size.
o Moderate to considerable drawdown and refilling for water supply.
Under this type of reservoir operation, sediment that deposits at the
38
upstream end of the reservoir is subject to erosion and transport during

periods of reservoir drawdown.
o Normally empty for flood control. Under this type of reservoir
operation, any sediment would tend to accumulate near the dam.
• What is the original and current reservoir storage capacity for water?
• What is the ratio of the original maximum reservoir depth (when the dam
was first constructed) to a typical river pool depth in the downstream
channel? The closer this ratio is to one, the less likely the reservoir has
trapped a significant volume of sediment. Conversely, if the maximum
reservoir depth is many times deeper than a typical river pool depth, then
the reservoir likely has trapped all the coarse sediment load of the river, at
least until the reservoir sediment storage capacity has filled to near
capacity.
• Have there been any past dredging operations in the reservoir to remove
sediment?
• Does the dam have a sluiceway or low level outlet and, if so, has it been
used to evacuate sediment and how often? Repeated operation of a
sluiceway would tend to reduce reservoir sediment accumulation and
supply sediment to the downstream channel.
• Is there exchange or mixing of reservoir sediment due to reservoir

drawdown operations during periods of high reservoir inflow? If reservoir
sediment is exposed to high velocities during floods, then these sediments
are like to erode and accumulate in the downstream portion of the
reservoir and grain sizes would be more mixed within the deposit.
• What is the ratio of the original reservoir storage volume (at the normal
pool elevation when the dam was first constructed) to the average annual
river flow and reservoir sediment trap efficiency? A very low sediment
trap efficiency (< 5 percent) is an indicator that the reservoir has not
accumulated significant quantities of sediment. In contrast, high sediment
trap efficiency (> 90 percent) is an indicator that the reservoir has
accumulated a large volume of sediment.
• What is the ratio of the reservoir sediment volume to the original reservoir
storage capacity? This ratio is a measure of how full the reservoir is of
sediment. If the reservoir filled long ago to its sediment storage capacity,
then sediments are being supplied to the downstream river channel. If the
reservoir has not yet filled with sediment, then the age of the reservoir also
represents the number of years of coarse sediment accumulation. In this
case, coarse sediments have not been released to the downstream river
channel.
39
• If the reservoir has already filled with sediment, over what period of time
did the filling take place? The number of years during which coarse
sediment was trapped may be only a small fraction of the reservoir age.
• What is the lateral and longitudinal extent of reservoir sediment deposits

from the site reconnaissance observations, available topography data, or
aerial imagery?
Characterize the watershed context

Answers to the following questions will help provide context for the reservoir
within the watershed setting:
• Where is reservoir located within the watershed?
• What are the general trends in slope and valley confinement within the
watershed?
• What are the longitudinal channel slopes and active channel widths
upstream and downstream of the reservoir and how does that compare the
expected predam conditions of the reservoir?
• What is the general vegetation cover and have there been significant fires
or disturbance that affects sediment yields?
• Where are the major types of sediment sources and locations in the
watershed upstream and downstream from the dam site (e.g. tributaries,
river terraces, debris flows, landslides) and how does this compare to
expected reservoir sediment volume and sediment gradation? Answers can
be used to put the volume of reservoir sediment in context with the
proximity and magnitude of other sediment sources in the watershed.
o What is the watershed geology and what types of sediment are
contributed to the river as a result?
o Is there a glacial history in the watershed that resulted in high sediment
loads?
 Are glaciers still active and contributing sediment to the
downstream river?
 Are there any moraines?
o Where are there significant sediment sources upstream from the dam?
o Where are the closest major tributaries that enter the downstream
channel?
• Are there significant wood loads into the reservoir?
40
• Are there any upstream or downstream dams and reservoirs that trap
sediment?
• Is sediment currently transported past the dam or is the reservoir still

accumulating sediment?
• What are the watershed land uses, both current and historical?
• Have recent forest fires or landslides occurred that may have affected
incoming sediment, nutrient, and wood loads?
• Are there any potential sources of sediment contamination upstream or

around the reservoir (also see contaminant source investigation)?
• What other engineering modifications of the river channel have taken

place upstream and downstream from the reservoir and dam site and how
have these modifications altered the channel from natural conditions?
Characterize hydrology
Using available stream gage data or hydrology reports for the watershed, identify
the key hydrologic parameters (see list below) for the project site that could
influence dam removal methods, dam removal construction, and sediment release
timing. If no stream gages are available, the StreamStats Program (USGS, 2017b)
can be used to estimate streamflow statistics. Hydrologic trends over recent
decades may be needed to analyze how removal of a storage reservoir(s) will
change downstream hydrology for both low and high flows.
• What is the typical annual hydrologic regime (e.g. when do floods and low
flows typically occur)?
• What are the average annual stream discharge and the peak discharge of
the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year floods?
• Is flow perennial or intermittent?
• How often do high flows occur that may help flush sediment?
• Are there any major flood control reservoirs upstream that alter hydrology
and reduce flood peaks or frequency?
• Have there been significant changes to runoff events due to land cover,
land use, and/or climatic changes?
• Are there any significant tributary inputs of flow and sediment within the
reservoir or downstream?
41
• How do stream flows, during in-water work periods of dam removal,

compare to the typical annual hydrologic pattern of stream flows?
• Are there any diversions in the vicinity of the dam and reservoir site?
• Do ice jams occur?
Step 2b: conduct reservoir sediment survey

Initially, existing data and qualitative field reconnaissance should be used to get
an order of magnitude estimate of the reservoir sediment volume. It is strongly
recommended that a qualitative “probing” reconnaissance survey be conducted
prior to designing a quantitative survey and collecting sediment samples. If water
levels are shallow enough to wade or work from a small boat, a long piece of
rebar, a soil auger, or a chimney sweep rod can be used to both measure the depth
of the unconsolidated sediments and qualitatively assess their grain size (clay, silt,
sand, and gravel/cobble “feel” differently when probed). If the reservoir is deeper
(> 10 feet), a grab sampler or coring device can be used to collect samples for
visual assessment. Divers may also be useful to identify the location and general
character of sediment deposits. In large reservoirs, sediment present in the
exposed delta or reservoir margins may provide a first indication of sizes present.
Simultaneous collection of geographic coordinates allows the creation of a map of
sediment type. This estimate should then be used to determine the level of effort
necessary for additional field measurements.
Reservoir sediment deltas, if they exist, typically extend upstream from the
reservoir and often look like a river channel with alluvial bars. However, the
longitudinal slope of the delta is typically about one-half of the natural river
channel slope (Reclamation, 2006). Longitudinal profile surveys are needed of the
reservoir bottom and upstream river channel. The longitudinal profile should
extend far enough upstream to capture sedimentation within riverine areas beyond
the full reservoir pool. An existing longitudinal profile of the top and bottom of
reservoir sediment, along with the upstream and downstream river profiles, help
describe the thickness of the reservoir sediment, which can be related to the total
reservoir sediment volume.
In addition to identifying the upstream extent of reservoir sedimentation, the

lateral extent of reservoir sediment deposits should be delineated. The original
reservoir shoreline is a good guide to where sedimentation may occur. Some
sources may include project data books, historical maps, design drawings, aerial
photographs, and historical accounts. In reservoirs that have fluctuating pool
elevations, sediment deposits may extend laterally beyond the normal operating
pool. Vegetation can grow on the exposed reservoir sediment deposits, so the
location of vegetation may not be a good surrogate for the extent of deposition.
42
Another way to identify reservoir sediment deposits is to look at the vertical

stratigraphy. Lake and reservoir deposits will have a different signature than
fluvial deposits. An experienced geomorphologist can help differentiate reservoir
and fluvial deposits. Historical land use and records of old dams that are no longer
present may also be informative with mapping.
Produce topographic and bathymetric map

When the reservoir sediment volume may be significant, a bathymetric survey of
the reservoir pool, and topographic survey of sediment exposed above the
reservoir pool, is recommended. Bathymetric surveys are typically conducted
from boats using single or multi-beam depth sounders and global positioning
system (GPS) survey instruments (Reclamation, 2006). The above-water surveys
can be conducted using GPS, photogrammetry, or LiDAR.
Reservoir sediment survey data collection tips include:

o Perform a topographic ground survey of the reservoir exposed above
the water surface, including the shoreline and upstream deltas that
typically extend beyond the reservoir pool
o Measure the bathymetry of the submerged reservoir bottom using a
depth sounder mounted on a boat
o Document any tree stumps within the reservoir pool that may provide
an indication of the predam reservoir bottom
o Document any vegetation growing on the reservoir sediment deposits
o Document topographic or bathymetric slope breaks that can help

identify the predam river, floodplain, terraces, and valley hillslopes
o Document any known or observed infrastructure (e.g., old dams, coffer

dams, buildings, roads, bank protection) that may be inundated by the
reservoir or buried by sediment
Estimate the predam topography and reservoir sediment

volume
The predam topography is important for either verifying or computing the
reservoir sediment volume. The predam topography will also help predict the
reservoir topography after dam removal, especially if nearly all of the sediment is
eroded or removed. An accurate estimate of the reservoir sediment volume is
needed to compare with the average annual sediment load of the stream channel
and to predict downstream impacts if it were allowed to erode downstream.
43
The reservoir sediment volume is computed either by subtracting the predam

topographic surface (if available) from the present surface of the reservoir bottom
or from direct measurements of sediment thickness and the sediment surface area
corresponding to that thickness. The predam valley bottom topography is often
the most challenging component with the greatest uncertainty in development of a
reservoir sediment volume. This is mostly because previous surveys were done
so long ago. If the reservoir sediment thickness is about the same or less than the
predam contour interval, it is difficult to accurately estimate volumes from a
surface difference.
If the predam map topography is inaccurate, not at a high enough resolution, or

simply not available, then the sediment volume is computed from thickness
measurements. The thickness of sediment over the predam topography often
varies spatially throughout the reservoir, so areas where the thickness is
significantly different need to be identified. The sediment volume of each area is
the product of the surface area and average thickness. The number of different
areas will depend on the number of thickness measurements and their variability.
The total reservoir sediment volume is the sum of the sediment volumes from all
the individual areas of the reservoir, including the upstream deltas that extend
beyond the reservoir pool.
The reservoir sediment thickness is measured by the use of coring, drill holes, or
thickness probes. For example, coring was used to estimate reservoir sediment
volume for three reservoirs on the Klamath River where sediment thicknesses
were typically equal to or less than the 3-m (10-ft) contour interval of the predam
maps (CDM, 2011). Thickness probes may only extend 1 or 2 m (3 to 6 ft) and
subsequently measure the minimum thickness. Sediment samples can be collected
using vibracoring methods. The vibracore operates on hydraulic, pneumatic,
mechanical, or electrical power from an external source. Geophysical methods
(e.g. seismic refraction) or dual frequency depth soundings may help determine
the spatial variation in sediment thickness.
Another method is to estimate the predam channel slope by extrapolation of the

existing upstream and downstream river profile slopes into the reservoir area
(Figure 8). Be careful to avoid extrapolating the river profile slopes that are
affected by reservoir sedimentation or local scour below the dam. For example,
the delta may extend upstream of the reservoir, but at about one-half of the
predam channel slope (Strand and Pemberton, 1982; Randle et al. 2006). On Lake
Mills on the Elwha River, the delta extended about 1 mile upstream of the
reservoir pool into a canyon creating sediment deposits tens of meters thick above
the reservoir pool stage. The predam-river profile, combined with the current
reservoir sediment profile, will provide an estimate of the reservoir sediment
thickness, which can be compared against probing or drill-hole data.
44
Coleman Dam on South Fork Battle Creek, CA

312
Reservoir/Channel Thalweg
310
Predam Thalweg Estimate
308
Dam location
306
Elevation (m)
304
302 Scour Pool within

Reservoir due to
300 water withdrawl
298
30.0 30.2 30.4 30.6 30.8 31.0 31.2
Longitudinal Distance (km)
Figure 8.—Example estimate of the predam profile through reservoir sediments at
Coleman Dam on South Fork Battle Creek, CA.
The channel bed downstream of the dam can be significantly lower than the pre-
dam channel because of two reasons: 1. Sediment starved flow in the river below
the dam will pick up sediment from the downstream river bed and lower bed
elevations. This lowering of bed elevations can occur for several miles
downstream of the dam; 2. Local scour or channel degradation can occur from
decades of water being passed over or through the dam with high velocity and the
trapping of coarse sediments within the reservoir. Therefore, the existing channel
profile immediately downstream from the dam may be lower than the predam
channel profile in areas affected by local scour. For example, the channel bed
below Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River in Oregon had been scoured by
high velocity releases through radial gates each spring and fall.
45
Measure the reservoir sediment sizes and spatial deposition

patterns
Reservoirs may have trapped coarse sediment, fine sediment, or a combination of
both depending on the upstream sediment supply and the reservoir sediment trap
efficiency. The reservoir trap efficiency for fine sediment can be much less than
the trap efficiency for coarse sediment. For example, the sediments trapped
behind a small diversion dam may be predominantly coarse with little or no fine
sediment. A medium sized reservoir may trap a significant volume of fine
sediment, but this volume may be less than the coarse sediment volume if the
travel time of water through the reservoir is short (e.g. hours). A large reservoir
would likely trap the entire sediment load of coarse and fine sediment and the
volume of fine sediment may dominate.
Determining the quantities of coarse sediment and fine sediment is important

because these sediment types respond differently to dam removal. Fine sediment
can resist erosion through cohesion and, when eroded, is transported as suspended
load throughout the stream flow. Coarse sediment can resist erosion through the
particle weight and, when eroded, tends to be transported close to bottom of the
stream.
The description of the reservoir sediment spatial distribution and size gradation
should identify the quantities of coarse and fine sediment and their locations
within the reservoir. There are a variety of methods that can used to collect
sediment samples to quantify sediment size gradations, depending on the
sediment thickness and accessibility of the site:.
• Draining or lowering of the reservoir pool to allow sampling from the
surface and from test pits and terrace banks.
• Hand coring of sediment samples is typically limited to depths of 2 to 3 m
(5 to 10 ft) (U.S. EPA, 2001 and Ohio EPA, 2001).
• Bed-material sampling of the submerged sediment surface. Bed-material
samplers are sanctioned by the Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project
(FISP, 2017).
• Collecting underwater surface samples or cores by divers.
• Core sampling using a vibracore or drill rig from either a barge over water
or truck on dry land (U.S. EPA, 2001 and Ohio EPA, 2001). The vibracore
operates on hydraulic, pneumatic, mechanical, or electrical power from an
external source.
The amount and size of wood that is present within the reservoir sediment should
be estimated based on field observations. The potential for old structures or debris
buried in the reservoir sediment should also be documented because these features
could potentially limit headcut erosion or lateral sediment erosion during dam
removal. A series of questions has been crafted to help describe the depositional
pattern of the reservoir sediment:
46
• What is the particle size gradation of the reservoir sediment?

o Delta sediment (typically sand, gravel, and cobble sized-sediment)
o Lake bed deposit (typically silt and clay sized sediment)
o Upstream river deposits
o Reservoir margin deposits
• Is there a sediment wedge evident in the longitudinal profile of the

reservoir? A comparison of predam and current longitudinal profiles is an
ideal way to characterize the longitudinal sediment distribution. However,
predam profile data are often not available for small dams. The predam
reservoir channel profile may have to be estimated from profiles
downstream and upstream from the reservoir.
• Is a reservoir delta present in the longitudinal profile? The presence of a

delta can also be determined from dive inspections, thickness probes or
drill holes. A delta is typically composed of coarse sediment and may not
be present in a stream that does not transport significant amounts of sand
or gravel or in narrow reservoirs with considerable drawdown. If the
presence of a delta is uncertain, document that it cannot be determined at
this stage.
• What is the ratio of the reservoir delta length to the original reservoir
length?
• Have any debris or structures been observed that would slow or limit
reservoir sediment erosion?
• Have logs been noted to deposit in the reservoir or be transported during

floods over the dam?
• Were predam trees completely removed, left in place, or logged with

stumps remaining? Presence or absence of tree stumps can affect incision
rates, collection of debris, and erosion patterns during drawdown.
• What is the controlling geology at the dam site that could influence channel
hydraulics or the extent of reservoir sediment or channel erosion following
dam removal?
• Are there tributaries that enter the reservoir and create additional
depositional features?
47
Determine reservoir sediment mass

The reservoir sediment mass or weight (Mg or tons) may have to be determined
from the sediment volume (m3 or yd3) for comparison with the estimated annual
sediment load if that is also based on mass (Mg/year) or weight (tons/year). The
reservoir sediment mass can be determined by multiplying the volume by the unit
weight or bulk density (dry weight per unit volume). The sediment unit weights in
a reservoir can vary with spatial distribution, depth, particle grain size, and with
time. Therefore, the reservoir sediment mass can be computed for each reservoir
zone or grain size.
The best source for obtaining the unit weight of reservoir sediment is by direct
field measurement (ASTM International, 2014). Sediment samples are collected
from a known volume of sediment, the dry weights are measured, and the ratio of
dry weight to volume is computed.
The sediment unit weights can also be estimated from empirical data. Morris and
Fan (1997) reported unit weights by the dominant grain size. It is reported for
various sizes of reservoir sediments for cases where the sediment is always
submerged and cases where the sediment is exposed above the water surface
(Table 3).
Strand and Pemberton (1982) and Reclamation (2006) reported the initial unit
weights for the individual grain size classes of clay, silt, and sand-sized reservoir
sediment under different reservoir conditions (Table 4). To develop the unit
weight of the entire reservoir deposit, the unit weights of the individual size
classes would have to be combined together based upon their mass as described in
(Strand and Pemberton, 1982). The unit weights of clay and silt would be
expected to increase over time as the sediments compact (Strand and Pemberton,
1982). Clay would be expected to compact the most. Reservoir sediment with fine
grained, unconsolidated sediment and significant organic content may have dry
unit weight values less than reported in the literature. For example, Copco
Reservoir on the Klamath River had a dry unit weight of 0.32 Mg/m3 (20 lbs/ft3)
(Greimann et. al, 2012).
48
Table 3.—Reservoir sediment dry unit weights in Metric and English units
reported by Morris and Fan (1997).
Exposed above
Dominant grain size Always submerged water
Clay 0.64 to 0.96 Mg/m3 0.96 to 1.28 Mg/m3
Silt 0.88 to 1.20 Mg/m3 1.20 to 1.36 Mg/m3
3
Clay-silt mixture 0.64 to 1.04 Mg/m 1.04 to 1.36 Mg/m3
3
Sand-silt mixture 1.20 to 1.52 Mg/m 1.52 to 1.76 Mg/m3
3
Clay-silt-sand mixture 0.80 to 1.28 Mg/m 1.28 to 1.60 Mg/m3
3
Sand 1.36 to 1.60 Mg/m 1.36 to 1.60 Mg/m3
3
Gravel 1.36 to 2.00 Mg/m 1.36 to 2.00 Mg/m3
3
Sand-gravel mixture 1.52 to 2.08 Mg/m 1.52 to 2.08 Mg/m3
Exposed above
Dominant grain size Always submerged water
Clay 40 to 60 lbs/ft3 60 to 80 lbs/ft3
Silt 55 to 75 lbs/ft3 75 to 85 lbs/ft3
Clay-silt mixture 40 to 65 lbs/ft3 65 to 85 lbs/ft3
Sand-silt mixture 75 to 95 lbs/ft3 95 to 110 lbs/ft3
Clay-silt-sand mixture 50 to 80 lbs/ft3 80 to 100 lbs/ft3
Sand 85 to 100 lbs/ft3 85 to 100 lbs/ft3
Gravel 85 to 125 lbs/ft3 85 to 125 lbs/ft3
Sand-gravel mixture 95 to 130 lbs/ft3 95 to 130 lbs/ft3
Table 4.—Initial unit weights of reservoir sediment reported by Strand and Pemberton
(1982).
Reservoir Condition Clay Silt Sand
Reservoir always full 0.42 Mg/m3 1.12 Mg/m3 1.55 Mg/m3
Reservoir periodically drawn down 0.56 Mg/m3 1.14 Mg/m3 1.55 Mg/m3
Reservoir normally empty 0.64 Mg/m3 1.15 Mg/m3 1.55 Mg/m3
River conditions 0.96 Mg/m3 1.17 Mg/m3 1.55 Mg/m3
Reservoir Condition Clay Silt Sand

Reservoir always full 26 lbs/ft3 70 lbs/ft3 97 lbs/ft3
Reservoir periodically drawn down 35 lbs/ft3 71 lbs/ft3 97 lbs/ft3
Reservoir normally empty 40 lbs/ft3 72 lbs/ft3 97 lbs/ft3
River conditions 60 lbs/ft3 73 lbs/ft3 97 lbs/ft3
Step 2c: collect river data

The general characteristics of the river channel are necessary to identify potential
concerns from released reservoir sediment and to accomplish computations in the
guidelines Step 4. The minimum data required for Step 4 are listed below. If the
risk assessment identifies a need for river analysis (e.g. modeling, field studies) in
Step 7, additional river data including main channel and floodplain topography,
bed material gradation, and characteristics will need to be collected.
• Measure the river profile and slope downstream from the dam to inform
which reaches might be transport versus depositional reaches. Use readily
available topographic data such as USGS quadrangles, LiDAR, or past
49
studies. The extent of analysis should ideally be for the entire watershed
within which the dam site is located. Exceptions might occur where large
reservoirs are located upstream that have large storage capacity and high
trap efficiency.
• Visually estimate the composition of streambed materials along the river

channel upstream and downstream of the dam and reservoir site (e.g. clay,
silt, sand, gravel, and cobble). Estimate the median and maximum bed
material sizes (D50, D90).
• Topographic surveys of river channel geometry may be needed for Step 4

(incoming sediment load) and Step 7 (downstream river transport
capacity). Collect data in each reach where there is concern about
sediment accumulation from the release of reservoir sediment.
• Conceptually predict future river patterns and extent of potential

migration.
• Visually estimate extent of floodplain and note any geologic controls that
influence river slope or lateral confinement (e.g. bedrock canyons, glacial
moraines).
50
STEP 3 EVALUATE POTENTIAL FOR

CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT
To determine if reservoir sediment can be released into the downstream channel
during dam removal, the potential presence of contaminants within the reservoir
sediment must be addressed. Determination of whether contaminants are an
influencing factor in the sediment management plan can be done concurrently
with Step 2: Data Collection and Synthesis (see Figure 7).
The guideline user is instructed to first review available data to see if a decision
can be made regarding presence of contaminants and if present, if acceptable to
release downstream. In lieu of readily available information, a multi-step
approach is used to determine if there is “reason to believe” contaminants may be
present (Step 3a), and if yes whether the contaminated sediment can be safely
released into the downstream river (Steps 3b and 3c). Step 3b focuses on chemical
sampling analyses and provides recommendations on how many samples to
collect and what types of chemical analysis to conduct to compare with sediment
quality criteria and background levels. Step 3c focuses on biological analysis
including bioassays, bioaccumulation studies, and elutriate tests for pathways and
receptors of concern to determine if contaminated sediment can be released.
Pathways considered are suspended sediment in the water column, or deposits that
may accumulate along the river bed, in sediment bars, or on the floodplain.
Receptors can include aquatic invertebrates, aquatic species such as fish or
mussels, benthic invertebrates, birds and wildlife, and humans including
consumption through fish/wildlife or drinking water intake. For cases that cannot
release the sediment, options are provided for contaminated sediment
management. A monitoring program is recommended to ensure sediment
management plans are properly implemented and no adverse, unanticipated
effects occur. Consideration should also be given to potential benefits from
sediment release and dam removal, and if these benefits outweigh impacts while
still meeting criteria for release of contaminants.
This document’s contaminant guidance was informed by federal

recommendations for evaluating contaminants in sediment proposed to be
dredged and disposed or released to inland waters, which has similarities to
determining if reservoir sediment can be safely released into the downstream river
during dam removal (U.S. EPA and USACE, 1998). Most dams will at a
minimum need to address freshwater sediment quality guidelines or standards, but
some may also need to address standards related to disposal (downstream
transport) into marine environments (U.S. EPA and USACE, 1991). Teams will
also need to address any regional sediment management standards developed by
state or county agencies. An example from the U.S. Pacific Northwest is the
dredged material management program for Washington State and the sediment
evaluation framework developed for dredging projects in Oregon, Washington
51
Step 3 evaluate potential for contaminated sediment
and Idaho (USACE et al. 2015; NRSET, 2016). Teams should also coordinate
with fisheries agencies or landowners and resource managers that may have
unique requirements, especially with in-water beneficial reuse or habitat creation
projects.
An example of toxic contaminant release associated with dam removal was the
Fort Edwards Dam on the Hudson River upstream of Albany, removed in 1973.
The dam was unsafe and was removed with all applicable permits. As a result of
dam removal, reservoir sediments contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) from upstream industries were released into the downstream river during
and after a large flood. Once the presence of contaminants was determined (after
dam removal), 2 million m3 of river sediment had to be dredged (Evans, 2015). A
more contemporary example was the removal in 2008 of Milltown Dam located at
the confluence of the Blackfoot and Clark Fork Rivers in Montana, which had
high levels of heavy metals (arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc) from historical
mining and was a designated superfund site (Evans and Wilcox, 2014; Moore,
2016). Milltown Dam removal used a combination of sediment management
techniques that included passive treatment of sediment pore water, isolation of
contaminated sediment from surface water and removal of 2 million m3 in the dry,
and mitigation to reduce erosion using bypass channels and regrading techniques.
Suspended sediment and copper loads released into the downstream river were
increased during substantial remediation activities at the dam and reservoir site
relative to background loads; after remediation activities constituent loads
approached typical conditions, but monitoring reports noted additional planned
restoration activities could cause additional erosion and sediment release from the
project site (Sando and Landing, 2011). The Baker and T&H Dams along the
Neponset River in Boston have such high PCB concentrations that they have not
yet been removed (written communication Jim MacBroom, March 3, 2017).
These studies emphasize the importance of linking the contaminant analysis
concurrent with the sediment risk assessment.
Step 3a: determine if contaminants are of concern

The purpose of Step 3a is to perform due diligence assessment to see if there is
cause for concern regarding the presence of contaminants. The main factors most
commonly associated with contaminant presence include land uses in the
upstream watershed and facilities at the dam and around the reservoir that could
result in contaminants within the reservoir sediments. If there is no cause for
concern, the guideline user can bypass the remainder of Step 3 and proceed to
Step 4. If Step 3a yields contaminant concerns or there is insufficient data, then
proceed to Step 3b for further testing and analysis.
52
Guideline Decision Question: Does the due diligence

assessment identify a contaminant concern?
• No concern, proceed to Step 4

o If no cause for concern from the due diligence assessment AND the
reservoir sediments are less than 10 percent silt and clay by volume
(Step 2 data), then contaminant testing IS NOT necessary and
sediment is safe to be released
• Yes concerns identified, proceed to Step 3b
o Due diligence identifies potential sources of contaminant and reservoir
sediment contains more than 10 percent silt and clay by volume (Step
2 data), then contaminant testing IS necessary
Many states assume reservoir sediments are contaminated until proven otherwise,
and require collection and analysis of a certain number of sediment samples at the
start of a dam removal project. If contamination is not automatically assumed, the
guideline user should perform a due diligence assessment of available information
for the site including potential for contaminants based on an upstream watershed
history, similar to the Step 3a Site Evaluation and History in the Dredged Material
Evaluation and Disposal Procedures (USACE et al. 2015). The upstream extent of
the watershed investigation depends on the size of the reservoir and the degree of
historical disturbance. A minimum assessment area defined as the stream-reach
impounded by the dam, plus a one-mile lateral buffer. The length of the upstream
buffer depends on the distribution of contaminant dischargers; for example,
reservoirs along the Kalamazoo River in Michigan are contaminated with PCBs
from historical point sources located dozens of miles upstream. This approach is
consistent with the American Society of Testing and Materials Standard Practice
for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Process (ASTM International, 2005 and 2008). However, in watersheds with
steep slopes (high transport rates) and confined river corridors, perform at least a
cursory due diligence assessment of the entire watershed for potential sources of
contaminants. The following questions should be answered to complete the Step
3a investigation.
Due Diligence Assessment for Sources of Contaminants:

• Were there any historical or current land use activities (e.g. mining,
industrial, agricultural, urban) at or near the dam and reservoir site that
could have contributed contaminants to the reservoir?
• Are there any sediment quality data from the vicinity of the site that
indicate contaminants?
• Were there any historical or current land use activities (e.g. industrial,
agricultural, urban), in the watershed upstream from the reservoir site that
could have contributed contaminants to the reservoir?
53
• Are there any natural sources or atmospheric sources of contaminants

within the watershed (e.g. arsenic or mercury)?
• Are there ongoing or historical upstream sources of contaminants?
• What are the most likely contaminants that might be discovered? (Note
that many states use a pre-determined list of likely contaminants, usually
including PCBs, PAHs, a suite of metals, and certain pesticides if their
presence is suspected.)
• Are there industrial wastewater discharges?
Likelihood of Retaining Contaminants:

• How does the historical or current contaminant activity compare with the
age of the reservoir and period of time reservoir sedimentation has
occurred?
• Are fine-grained sediments present in the reservoir deposit that have the
potential to retain contaminants? If this is unknown, either collect
sediment samples or estimate the reservoir sediment trap efficiency of the
reservoir to estimate the portion of fine sediments in the reservoir.
• Were there major floods that could have transported contaminants to the
reservoir impoundment from upstream areas identified as a concern?
• Were there major floods or dam maintenance operations such as periodic
drawdowns for repairs or flood relief that could have flushed contaminated
sediments from the reservoir?
Data sources to accomplish the due diligence assessment may include:

• agency records and permits,
• historical project operations,
• zoning maps,
• databases for land use (see more detail below),
• databases for ambient water quality
o NAWQA regional studies accomplished in 2013 to 2018 (about 100
small streams per region)
o U.S. EPA National Rivers and Stream Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2017a)
o USGS Columbia Environmental Research Center
• interviews with site managers, property owners, stakeholders, adjacent
landowners, and staff knowledgeable on watershed land use and site
history,
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit reviews,
• identification of hazardous waste sites,
54
• environmental studies for the watershed prepared by others, especially

those which may have sediment or water chemistry data, and
• reconnaissance of the site
Databases for land uses frequently associated with pollutant release to the
environment can be accessed on line or through files maintained by State and
Federal natural resource management agencies. For example, the U.S. EPA’s
Facility Registry System identifies facilities, sites or places subject to
environmental regulations of air, water, and waste interest (U.S. EPA, 2017b).
U.S. EPA’s Envirofacts Database identifies facilities with air and water waste
discharge permits, solid or hazardous waste sites, and facilities handling
hazardous materials, as do databases administered by state air, surface water, and
ground water management agencies (U.S. EPA, 2017c). Sites within the
assessment area, or adjacent to tributaries leading to the assessment area, can be
screened-in or screened-out for further review based on specific location
information.
If the dam removal is very large or especially controversial, a conceptual diagram

can help the team communicate with reviewers the locations of potential sources
of contaminants relative to the reservoir site, along with locations where the
contaminated sediment could be transported downstream. This information can
help inform sampling and analysis plans (if needed in Step 3b and 3c) by also
identifying potential biological receptors (e.g. humans, fish, invertebrates) and
where impacts to human health could occur such as downstream water intakes or
wells used for drinking water. For example, a conceptual diagram for the Klamath
River was used to identify potential pathway impacts from exposed reservoir
sediment that could be released during dam removal (CDM, 2011). The pathways
for contaminant impact associated with dam removal included the following
components illustrated in Figure 9:
1. Short-term direct toxicity to humans and biota
2. Long-term terrestrial exposure for riparian biota and humans from
reservoir terrace deposits and river bank deposits.
3. Long-term aquatic exposure for aquatic biota and humans from river bed
and floodplain deposits.
4. Long-term exposure for aquatic biota from marine near shore deposits.
55
Figure 9.—Potential pathways of released reservoir sediment into downstream

river channel utilized on Klamath River evaluation (CDM, 2011).
As noted above, many states omit the due diligence assessment described in Step
3a with specific requirements that guide testing. However, if a due diligence
assessment is performed, summarize the assessment information to determine if
contaminants are a concern and it is necessary to proceed to Step 3b. In general,
where there is a lack of fine sediment and the absence of pollutant sources, there
is little need to characterize potential sediment contaminants. A few uncommon
examples where contaminants can be present in coarse-grained sediment are
documented below. A draft report (with maps, conceptual diagram, facility lists,
and summary of the subset of any issues that need additional evaluation) is
typically prepared for review by permitting agencies and stakeholders. A final
report is usually prepared to document the recommendation to stakeholders based
on the findings of the due diligence assessment and permitting agency reviews.
Contaminants are typically associated with clay- and silt-sized sediment particles.
However, there are examples where contaminants have been associated with
sand- and gravel-sized sediments. The likelihood of contaminated reservoir
sediments is primarily determined from the watershed investigation (screening-
level sampling). The following examples illustrate highly contaminated sediments
within particle sizes larger than silt:
• “Stamp sands”: A copper ore processing technique used in the late 1800s
produced copper-rich sand-sized particles that were usually discharged
into river valleys (500 million tons in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula alone).
These stamp sands contain up to 5,000 mg/Kg total copper, well above
commonly used sediment quality criteria (~ 150 mg/Kg).
• Sand-based metal casting molds: Elevated concentrations of PCBs have
been found in sand-sized sediments in Michigan’s Saginaw River. These
sediments are derived from discarded and weathered sand-based metal
56
casting molds made with high temperature-resistant adhesives containing

PCBs.
• Thin films of organic material on gravel: Elevated concentrations (> 20
mg/Kg) of PCBs have been found in coarse sands and gravels in the
Housatonic River in Massachusetts, presumably sequestered in thin films
of organic material on the surface of the particles. These concentrations
are well above commonly used sediment quality criteria (~ 0.7 mg/Kg).
Step 3b: if contaminants are of concern, proceed

with sediment chemistry analysis and
determine if concentrations exceed criteria
If a sediment chemistry sampling and analysis plan is required, the plan should be
guided by specific issues identified in due diligence assessment (Step 3a). The
team should meet with permitting agencies and stakeholders to obtain
concurrence on the reservoir sediment sampling plan and get consensus on what
contaminants to include in analyses. The following sections provide guidance on
the contaminant sampling plan and chemical analysis. If not already
accomplished, an initial probing reconnaissance of reservoir sediment distribution
and grain size is strongly recommended before implementing a sampling and
analysis plan (see Step 2). At the end of Step 3b, determine if reservoir sediment
exceeds contaminant criteria and background conditions requiring further
evaluation in Step 3c.
Guideline Decision Question: Do contaminant concentrations

exceed sediment quality criteria and background conditions?
• Contaminant concentrations would not be exceeded. Reservoir sediment
can be released, so proceed to Step 4.
• Contaminant concentrations would be exceeded, collect more samples if
required by local regulators and then proceed to Step 3c.
Characterizing the composition and possible contamination of reservoir sediments

can be a great challenge. Reservoir sediments are generally not visible (unless the
reservoir is first dewatered) and so they must be sampled underwater and below
the sediment surface. Particle sizes and contaminant distributions can be fairly
heterogeneous. The history of land use, contaminant discharges, and dam
operation all influence the magnitude and extent of sediment contamination, but
are not always known. Steps to improve the representativeness, that is, how well
the collected samples represent the true magnitude and extent of contaminant
distribution, of a sediment quality survey are described below. It is strongly
recommended that a “probing” reconnaissance survey be conducted prior to
designing a more comprehensive survey and collecting sediment samples (see
Step 2).
57
To design a quantitative sediment sampling survey that is representative of in situ

conditions, the following three factors must be considered:
1. How samples will be collected

2. How many samples will be collected
3. Where samples will be collected
MacDonald and Ingersoll (2002) provide a good introduction to these topics, and
a brief summary of these three factors is provided below. Evans (2015) also
recommends considering vertical stratigraphy of contaminant presence in
conjunction with historical land use and flood occurrence. This can help pinpoint
where contaminants are present. When combined with numerical or physical
modeling of reservoir sediment erosion, the likelihood of contaminant layers
being eroded can be estimated.
The two principal types of sediment samplers are grab samplers and core
samplers. Both samplers work best (i.e. penetrate deepest) in silty sediment,
usually work well in unconsolidated sand, and do not efficiently sample dense
clay or gravel/cobble. Grab samplers (e.g. Ponar or Ekman samplers) only collect
the surficial 6-8 inches (maximum) of unconsolidated sediment and cannot be
utilized to characterize thick sediment deposits with vertical stratification. Core
samplers are most commonly employed in impoundments and reservoirs. Core
samplers collect 2 to 4 inch diameter cores up to 15 feet long, depending on the
coring device used and the compaction of the sediments. There are several types
of sediment core samplers, and those most commonly used in reservoirs are hand
cores, gravity cores, and vibracores. Maximum core lengths collected by these
three samplers typically range from 4 feet up to 15 feet, respectively. Drill rigs
can be employed for locations with thick deposits at deep depths. Drill rigs can be
employed from either a floating barge or placed on exposed reservoir sediment
deposits after a partial reservoir drawdown.
The number of samples to collect and sampling methodology may be prescribed

by the local regulatory agency depending on site conditions such as the depth of
sediment behind the dam.
In addition to sampling sediments within the reservoir, it is often desirable (and

sometimes required) to also collect a few samples from upstream and/or
downstream of the reservoir for comparison to reservoir sediment quality. If the
reservoir sediments are no more contaminated than sediments in the rest of the
river, it could be argued that they do not present additional risk to the riverine
environment.
An example sampling and analysis scheme is below:

• Conduct screening level survey
o If reservoir sediment is less than 8,000 m3 (10,000 yd3) of fine-grained
sediment, collect three or four cores in the reservoir, one core in the
58
downstream river channel, and an additional core from the upstream

channel.
o If reservoir sediment is greater than 8,000 m3 (10,000 yd3) of fine-
grained sediment, develop a customized sampling plan to meet local
regulations.
• Conduct laboratory analysis
o The laboratory analysis should test for a suite of metals (arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc are
common), PAHs, PCBs, and total organic carbon plus any other
constituents of concern identified from the historical land use
assessment (e.g. pesticides);
o Based on screening level samples, are contaminants uniformly
distributed or are contaminant “hot spots” present? If screening survey
finds spatially discrete contaminant hot spots, implement a definitive
survey to determine their extent. The details of a definitive survey are
site-specific and will have to be negotiated with regulators. However,
an hypothetical example is provided below:
 If reservoir sediment is less than 8,000 m3 (10,000 yd3) of fine-
grained sediment, 1 core per 800 m3 (1,000 yd3), unless local
regulations prescribe a different sample density
 If reservoir sediment is greater than 8,000 m3 (10,000 yd3) of fine-
grained sediment, develop a customized plan to delineate the
extent of contaminant “hot spots” or areas of concern from
screening survey.
In many instances, best professional judgment also plays a role in deciding how
many samples to collect. Factors to consider when exercising best professional
judgment are listed below:
• Expected sediment deposition patterns of different particle size groups
(clay, silt, sand, gravel, etc.), which will be known if a probing survey has
been performed.
• Expected contaminant spatial heterogeneity (considering location of
contaminant sources.
• Location of fine-grained sediment deposits.
• Prior sediment removals or reservoir flushing.
• The physiochemical properties of the contaminants of interest, etc.
• The possible fate of the sediment (left in-place, removed, or allowed to
transport downstream).
59
Example tool for determining the number of sediment samples

A more quantitative approach to deciding how many cores to collect is to use
geostatistical calculations to estimate the number of samples needed to detect a
contaminant ‘hot spot’ of a certain size with a known certainty. The Visual
Sampling Plan software package is a useful, and free, geostatistical program is
available from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (2017).
An example of calculation results is given in the box below. Detecting small

contaminant hot spots with high confidence can require a very large number of
samples.
Hot Spot Required

Radius, # of
Scenario m (ft) Samples
• Canals on Lake St. Clair, MI 1 (3) 7,787
• Surface area = 21,700 m2
(233,600 ft2 or 6 football fields) 5 (16) 312
• Assume a square grid, and desire 95%
10 (33) 78
confidence of detecting a circular hot spot
• Calculate how many samples for different hot 15 (49) 35
spot sizes
20 (66) 20
The results of the probing survey will greatly assist in deciding where to collect
sediment samples; generally preference is given to fine-grained, highly organic
sediments. The four most commonly used sampling strategies in sediment quality
studies are:
• Simple random sampling

• Systematic grid sampling
• Subjective sampling (where known or suspected contaminant sources
influence the selection of sampling points)
• Stratified random sampling
Gilbert (1987) gives an excellent discussion of these and other sample collection
strategies. While all four strategies can be useful in sediment quality studies (box,
below), stratified random sampling is often recommended because sediments in
reservoirs often exhibit distinct “strata”; e.g. fine-grained organic sediments near
the dam and along the edges of the reservoir, and coarser sediment in the
upstream end of the reservoir.
60
Known or Suspected Contaminant

Distribution Recommended Strategy
Random and uniform Random sampling
Known strata Stratified random sampling
Known hot spots Subjective sampling
Linear trends, or mapping of data Systematic grid sampling
important to project
Step 3c: conduct biological analysis and estimate

sensitivity to determine if contaminated
sediment can be released
If contaminants are present, the project team must work with regulatory agencies
and decision makers to determine if the contaminants can be released into the
downstream river or otherwise managed.
Guideline Decision Question: Can contaminated sediment be

released?
• Yes, the impacts would be acceptable
o If the released contaminants will have a short-term and insignificant
impact to downstream human health, aquatic species, or ecological
resources, assume river erosion can be utilized as the sediment
management plan and proceed with Step 4.
• No, the impacts would be unacceptable or too uncertain
o If the contaminated sediment will take a long time to transport through
the downstream river (e.g. longer exposure) and there would be
significant impact to human health, aquatic species, or ecological
resources, the reservoir sediment cannot be released downstream.
Proceed to contaminated sediment management options.
The following stakeholder questions related to contaminants summarize earlier

steps and provide guidance on how to walk through discussions related to
potential impacts from contaminants (Augspurger, 2016):
• What are the historical or existing pollutant sources of concern upstream

of the dam (Step 3a)?
• Do sediment pollutants exceed sediment quality criteria and background
levels indicating potential adverse impacts to biota (Step 3b)?
• If contaminants exceed acceptable levels, what are the risks to benthic and
downstream aquatic species?
• How will entrained sediments affect water quality and human health?
61
• Do pollutant concentrations within the reservoir differ from those

downstream, which may be impacted by dam removal?
• Is unacceptable bioaccumulation of contaminants an issue for downstream
wildlife?
Potential impacts can be evaluated through toxicological analysis done
concurrently with Step 3b or as a separate study. Toxicological analysis involves
evaluating the effects of contaminant release on biota using methods such as
bioassays and bioaccumulation studies. Sediment bioassay testing typically
evaluates a 10-day exposure to determine if benthic associated organisms can
survive “acute” exposure to released reservoir sediment. This is most commonly
done with freshwater species. Bioaccumulation studies assess whether
contaminants accumulate in test organisms to concentrations higher than in the
sediment, and typically have a 28 day exposure period.
Custom studies of the impacts to biota are beyond the scope of these guidelines,
but could be employed for complex sites with localized questions regarding
effects of contaminants. Special studies would likely be implemented when
contaminant results have too much uncertainty to allow decision making
regarding release of reservoir sediment.
Contaminated Sediment Management Options

For cases with significant impacts from released contaminants, it is likely the
contaminated sediments will need to be capped and isolated or removed and
appropriately disposed of. Special assessments will be required for either of these
activities to assure that disturbance to the sediment during capping and isolation
or removal does not release contaminated sediments that could cause more harm
than ambient conditions. Removal of contaminated sediment from the reservoir
area may be necessary, but care must be taken to ensure that relocated sediments
are not subsequently released into the environment in harmful concentrations.
Further, reservoir drawdown to accomplish sediment removal along with the
removal itself can result in reservoir sediment erosion, disturbance and release of
contaminants into the downstream river (Evans, 2015).
Another option is to stabilize the contaminated sediments within the reservoir, but
dam removal studies that document the success of this method are limited (Evans,
2015). Due to the uncertainty with stabilization, care must be taken to help ensure
that contaminated deposits are not subsequently eroded during future floods or
leached into the ground water. A separate geotechnical engineering investigation
would be needed to design the containment system. Evans (2015) suggests
potential mitigation of stabilization uncertainty may include (1) phased drawdown
of the reservoir, exposure, and restoring vegetative ground cover on the reservoir
sediments, (2) imposing a designed channel through the former reservoir, and/or
(3) containment diking around areas of high contaminant concentrations (hot
spots).
62
Example contaminated sediment evaluation flow

charts
The following flow charts provide sample decision trees that may assist with
determining what sediment management plan is acceptable when contaminated
sediment is present in the reservoir. The first flow chart evaluates the reservoir
sediment deposit remaining after dam removal (Figure 10). If dam removal and
sediment management activities leave contaminated sediment in the reservoir,
evaluate potential risks associated with future land uses. The second flow chart is
a decision tree for fish consumption (Figure 11). If contaminated sediment is
planned to be released into the downstream river channel, evaluate potential
impact to fish consumption by humans and wildlife and an ecological risk
assessment of potential impacts to the fish themselves.
63
Evaluate Sediment Deposit

(Soil) Remaining after Dam
Removal
Sediment Left > Human

NO Health or Aquatic Toxicity
Criteria for Soil
Acceptable to
YES
Leave Remove
Reservoir and
Sediment in Dispose
Place; Proceed Leaving and mitigating
NO sediment
with Analysis is acceptable
Prior to or
After Dam
Removal
YES
Perform appropriate soil

management BMPs,
depending on future land
use (varies by state;
examples below)
Industrial Commercial Residential
Figure 10.—Post-removal reservoir sediment (soil) decision tree.
64
Evaluate Potential for

Sediment Transport
Quantity and Timing
Sediment Mobilized > Sediment

NO,
Quality Criteria for Bioconcentratable Phase 1
low
Chemicals of Concern
risk
YES Phase 2
>TEC but
<PEC >PEC
Lab Test or
Equilibrium Resident Biota1
Partitioning or Caged Biota
Model or Test
Resident Biota
Lab Test Accumulation Factor
> Local Value, or Resident
Model or Biota or Caged Biota > FCA
Biota >
NO
Criteria
(FCA)? YES
YES NO
Evaluate
Mitigation
Acceptable Options
to release
downstream
Staged Dam Cap or Partial or Full
Removal Isolate Removal
Figure 11.—Fish consumption example decision tree.

1
Adult or young of the year of appropriate species
FCA = fish consumption advisory
TEC = threshold effects concentration
PEC = probable effects concentration
65
STEP 4: DETERMINE RELATIVE RESERVOIR

SEDIMENT VOLUME AND PROBABILITY OF
IMPACT
This section will discuss how to determine the relative reservoir sediment volume,
which is defined as the ratio of reservoir sediment volume or mass to the average
annual sediment load entering the reservoir (Step 4a). The relative reservoir
sediment volume represents the number of years of sediment load stored in the
reservoir, which is then interpreted to be the probability of reservoir sediment
impact (Step 4b).
Step 4a: estimate the average annual sediment load

The average annual sediment load entering the reservoir can be estimated from (1)
the measured sediment load entering the reservoir, (2) the product of watershed
sediment yield and drainage area, (3) the sediment weight as computed from the
volume and unit weight in reservoirs, or (4) transport capacity formulas. Average-
annual sediment load estimates based on the product of watershed sediment yield
and drainage area typically include both fine and coarse sediment and represent
the total load. In contrast, sediment transport capacity formulas only represent
sediment size classes contained in appreciable amounts within the river bed
material, usually the coarser size fractions. The average annual sediment load may
represent total load or only the coarse or fine sediment load, but the comparison
with the amount of reservoir sediment must be consistent. For example, the total
sediment load can be compared with all reservoir sediment whereas coarse
sediment load should be compared with only the amount of coarse reservoir
sediment. If the annual sediment load is in units of mass, then it should be
compared with the reservoir sediment mass. Measured or assumed unit weights or
dry bulk densities will be needed to convert the reservoir sediment volume to
weight or mass.
Method 1: continuous sediment load measurement

If continuous measured sediment load data are available upstream of the reservoir
(or downstream of the reservoir prior to dam construction), then compute the
average annual sediment load from the period of record. However, sediment load
data from several years, and over a wide range of stream flows, would be
necessary to compute a reliable average annual sediment load. If only suspended
sediment concentration has been measured, an estimate may be needed to account
for bed load (e.g. 10 to 30 percent of total load) (Meade et al. 1990 and
Reclamation, 2006). Sediment load data can be temporally or spatially variable,
67
Step 4: determine relative reservoir sediment volume and probability of impact
so available data needs to be reviewed to characterize the variability or gaps. The

sediment load data may need to be extrapolated or supplemented with other
methods to cover the full range of flows. If the sediment load data are from a
location far from the dam site, then adjustments may be needed to account for the
sediment contributions from the intervening drainage area between the stream
gage and dam site.
Method 2: sediment yield

The average annual sediment load (Qs) can be computed from the product of the
sediment yield (Y) and the sediment-contributing drainage area (A):
𝑄𝑄𝑠𝑠 = 𝑌𝑌 𝐴𝐴 (3)
The sediment-contributing drainage area could be less than the total drainage area
if upstream lakes or reservoirs are trapping sediment. There could be different
sediment yield estimates for different portions of the watershed and, in that case,
the average annual sediment load would be computed for each sub-drainage area
(i) and summed:
𝑛𝑛
𝑄𝑄𝑠𝑠 = �(𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 ) (4)

𝑖𝑖
where n is the number of sub-drainage areas. Reservoir sedimentation can also

vary over time depending on hydrologic trends that affect sediment loads and
vegetation along with human land use changes in the upstream watershed.
Reservoir sediment surveys are a great source for empirical sediment yield data.
Sediment yield estimates can be used for data available within the drainage area
where the dam is being removed, or from watersheds with similar characteristics.
Chapter 2 of the Erosion and Sedimentation Manual (Reclamation, 2006)
provides an overview of methods to compute sediment yield. The USGS’ national
SPARROW model for suspended sediment is an additional resource to provide a
rough estimate of sediment load into a reservoir (Schwarz, 2008 and USGS,
2017c).
Method 3: cases where the reservoir still traps sediment

If a reservoir is still trapping at least 50% of incoming sediment load, then the
average annual load can be computed using the reservoir sediment trap efficiency
method (Strand and Pemberton, 1982, see Figure 12). Based upon the empirical
trap efficiency curves in this reference, a reservoir would trap about 50% of the
incoming sediment load when the ratio of remaining reservoir capacity to average
annual inflow is 0.01.
68
Figure 12.—Empirical reservoir sediment trap efficiency curves based on Churchill

(1948) and Brune (1953) and additional case studies (Strand and Pemberton, 1982).
When the original reservoir storage capacity is not known, the longitudinal
profiles of the existing reservoir sediment and predam channel provide a good
indication of whether the reservoir is still trapping sediment. Unless a delta profile
has extended downstream all the way to the dam, then the reservoir is likely
trapping coarse and perhaps some fine sediment. If the water depth in the
reservoir pool is significantly deeper than the upstream or downstream channel,
this is also a sign that the reservoir is still trapping sediment.
The average annual sediment load (Qs) can be computed by dividing the reservoir
sediment volume (V) by the product of time (T) and the reservoir sediment trap
efficiency (P). If change in reservoir storage capacity versus time is known, the
equation can be applied incrementally for each time period.
𝑉𝑉
𝑄𝑄𝑠𝑠 = (5)
𝑇𝑇 𝑃𝑃
When the proportions of coarse versus fine sediment within the reservoir
sediment volume are known, the above equation can be applied separately. The
trap efficiency for coarse sediment is typically near 100 percent such that the
average annual load of coarse sediment (Qsc) is simply the coarse sediment
volume (Vc) divided by the years of sedimentation (T) (typically the age of the
dam). Reservoirs with small relative sizes (ratio of reservoir capacity to average
annual inflow < 0.01) may have reached their sediment storage capaicty long ago
and the equatioin above would not be applicable.
69
Method 4: sediment-discharge rating curve

The average annual sediment load can be determined using a sediment-discharge
rating curve and a discharge hydrograph based on measured or computed data.
Combining the discharge data and the sediment-discharge rating curves will
produce a daily sediment load record. A suspended sediment-discharge rating
curve can be developed from a log-log regression of measurements of suspended
sediment concentration and stream flow discharge. A separate rating curve for the
bed load can be developed from a log-log regression of measurements of bed load
and stream flow discharge. At some sites only suspended sediment load
measurements are available and the bed load will have to be estimated.
When measured data are not available, predictive transport equations are used to
produce a sediment-discharge rating curve. The sediment-discharge rating curve
is then applied to the daily discharges entering the reservoir to compute daily bed-
material loads, which can be considered equivalent to the coarse sediment loads.
The daily coarse sediment loads are then totaled for each year to compute the
average-annual coarse sediment load. The average-annual coarse sediment load
will be sufficient when the reservoir sediments are predominantly coarse.
However, another method such as sediment yield (see Method 2) will have to be
used when the reservoir has a significant amount of fine sediment.
The measured or computed sediment-discharge rating curve may have significant

uncertainty. When using measurements to create a sediment-discharge rating
curve, the uncertainty in the predicted sediment loads can be estimated using
standard techniques to compute uncertainty bounds of the linear regression of the
logarithmic transformed sediment load data. When a sediment transport formula
is used to compute the sediment-discharge rating curve, there may not be a
rigorous method to compute the uncertainty of the sediment loads, but multiple
transport formulas can be applied to develop a range of possible transport
capacities that could serve as a surrogate for the uncertainty.
As an example, the sediment transport formula by Yang (1973) was applied to the
Sprague River in Oregon for the Chiloquin Dam removal study to develop a
sediment-discharge rating curve for coarse sediment (Figure 13). The historical
mean-daily discharge record (Figure 14) was then applied to this rating curve to
produce estimates of the daily coarse sediment load (Figure 15) (Randle and
Daraio, 2003). The average annual coarse sediment load was then computed from
the daily estimates.
70
Computed Sediment-Discharge Rating Curves

100,000
Bed Material Load (Mg/day)
10,000
1,000
d50 = 0.25 mm
d50 = 0.5 mm
100
10
1 10 100 1,000
Discharge (m3/s)
Figure 13.—Example sediment-discharge rating curves computed for the Sprague
River in Oregon, using the sediment transport equation by Yang (1973) for sand,
versus discharge for two different median sand sizes (0.25 mm and 0.5 mm).
Measured Mean-Daily Discharge Hydrograph

450
400
Mean Daily Discharge (m3/s)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Jan-1921 Jan-1941 Jan-1961 Jan-1981 Jan-2001
Figure 14.—Example mean-daily discharge history for the Sprague River in
Oregon.
71
Mean Daily Sediment Transport Capacity

80,000
Average Annual Bed-Material Loads:
Bed Material Load (Mg/day), d50 = 0.5 mm 186,000 Mg/yr assuming d50 = 0.5 mm
70,000
285,610 Mg/yr assuming d50 = 0.25 mm
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Jan-1921 Jan-1941 Jan-1961 Jan-1981 Jan-2001
Figure 15.—Example daily coarse sediment load hydrograph computed for the
Sprague River in Oregon.
Application of a sediment transport equation requires the following types of data:

• Streamflow discharge history
• Channel hydraulic data
• Bed-material particle size gradation
More information is provided below on developing stream discharge hydrographs,

measuring channel hydraulic data, and selecting the predictive sediment transport
equation.
Streamflow discharge
If available, streamflow data from a nearby stream gage is the best source of
discharge data. For estimating the average annual sediment load, the discharge
history (mean-daily flow record) entering the reservoir is most applicable.
If streamflow data from a nearby gage are not available, then discharge will have
to be estimated from a stream gage somewhere else in the watershed or from a
gage in a nearby watershed with similar characteristics. The streamflow is then
scaled with the following equation:
p
A 
Qd = Qg  d  (6)
A 
 g 
Where,
Qd = discharge at dam site,
72
Qg = discharge at stream gage,

Ad = drainage area above dam site,
Ad = drainage area above stream gage, and
p= exponent power, typically between 0.5 and 1
Another option is to estimate discharge statistics (e.g., mean discharge, 2-yr flood
peak, 10-year flood peak, etc.) from regional regressions. The National
Streamflow Statistics Program is a good source for regional regressions in the
United States (USGS, 2017d).
Regional regressions also may provide guidance on the appropriate exponent (p)
to use for extrapolating discharge from a nearby stream gage. Regional
regressions include effects of elevation and average annual precipitation. The U.S.
Geological Survey StreamStats web application (USGS, 2017b) is a helpful tool
that can be used to click on a location of interest and compute discharge estimates
using the applicable regional regression equations.
Channel hydraulic data
Channel hydraulic data are needed in predictive sediment transport equations to

represent the hydraulic capacity of the channel to transport sediment. An alluvial
reach of stream should be chosen that is not heavily impacted by man-made
structures or influenced by the reservoir pool or delta. A reach length equal to at
least 10 channel widths would provide a reasonable sample. Sediment transport
capacity can be computed at multiple cross sections, so that a range of transport
capacities can be considered.
Selection of a typical river cross section(s) that represents average energy slope
and transport capacity is recommended. Cross sections at rapids and steep riffles
will have relatively high sediment transport capacity, while cross sections at river
pools will have relatively low sediment transport capacity, especially during low
flows. If possible, selection of a cross-section(s) within a fairly straight reach
without large pools and steep riffles is recommended for computing sediment
transport capacity.
The required hydraulic data from the selected reach are listed below:
• Cross-sectional channel shape from which to compute the following
variables as a function of the water depth, y:
o Cross-sectional area (A),
o Wetted channel width (T),
o Wetted perimeter (P), and
o Hydraulic radius (R = A/P)
• Channel roughness (Manning’s n coefficient)
• Longitudinal energy slope (Se) for the cross section of interest
73
The best source of hydraulic data are from a one-dimensional hydraulic model
that is based on measured channel cross sections and calibrated to measured water
surface elevations. The USACE HEC-RAS model (Brunner, 2016a and 2016b)
can be used to compute channel hydraulics for various stream discharges of
interest.
If a one-dimensional model is not available, Manning’s equation can be used to

compute normal depth at a measured cross section.
c 2 1
Q = A R 3 So 2 (7)
n
where
c= 1.486 for English units and 1.0 for S.I. units and
So = average longitudinal bottom slope of the channel.
Normal depth is the water flow depth that will be achieved for a given discharge
under steady flow conditions along a channel of uniform cross section. For
normal depth, the longitudinal slope of the water surface and channel bottom are
the same. By iteration, Manning’s equation can be used to compute the cross-
section flow depth for a given discharge, longitudinal slope, and channel
roughness.
5
3
A nQ
2
=1 (8)
P 3 c So 2
For a given channel cross section, assume a normal depth water surface elevation
and then compute the left-hand side of equation 8. Keep adjusting the assumed
water surface elevation until the value on the left-hand side of the equation
matches the value on the right-hand side of the equation within an acceptable
tolerance (e.g., 1%). If detailed cross section measurements are not initially
available, the channel width can be estimated from aerial photographs and
channel geometry can be assumed (e.g. rectangular, trapezoidal, and triangular).
However, stream cross sections should eventually be measured.
Selection of a predictive sediment transport equation
The choice of a predictive sediment transport equation depends primarily on the

sediment particle grain size and transport mode. Example text books on sediment
transport are listed below:
• Sediment Transport Technology, Water and Sediment Dynamics, Revised
Edition (Simons and Senturk 1992).
• Sediment Transport Theory and Practice (Yang, 1996).
• The ASCE Sedimentation Engineering manual (Garcia, 2008)
74
Many sediment transport functions are available, each one specified for a certain
range of sediment size and flow conditions. Computed results based on different
transport equations can differ significantly from each other and from actual
measurements. No universal equation exists which can be applied with accuracy
to all sediment and flow conditions. There are many computer programs available
to estimate sediment transport capacity. The Bureau of Reclamation provides one
such program (Huang and Bountry, 2009). This program can compute sediment
transport capacity using the equations listed in Table 5.
Table 5.—Sediment transport equations available in SRH-Capacity program.

Bed-
material
Sediment Transport Equation Bedload Total Load
Engelund and Hansen sand (1972) √
Laursen (1958) √
Laursen-Madden (Madden, 1993) √
Ackers and White (1973) √
Ackers and White with revised coefficients (HR
Wallingford, 1990) √
Brownlie sand (1981) √
Yang sand (1973) and Yang gravel (1984) √
Yang sand (1979) and Yang gravel (1984) √
Yang (1996) modified for high washload
concentrations √
Wilcock and Crowe (2003) with and without Einstein’s
shear stress correction √
Wilcock and Crowe (2003) with Engelund and Hansen
(1972) sand coupled options 1, 2, and 3 √ √
Wilcock and Crowe (2003) modified by Gaeuman et
al. (2009) with and without Einstein’s shear stress
correction √
Wilcock and Crowe modified by Gaeuman et al.
(2009) with Engelund and Hansen (1972) sand
coupled options 1, 2, and 3 √ √
Parker gravel (1990) with and without Einstein’s shear
stress correction √
Parker gravel (1990) with Engelund and Hansen
(1972) sand coupled options 1, 2 and 3 √ √
Meyer-Peter and Müller (1948) √
Meyer-Peter and Müller modified by Wong and Parker
(2006) √
Wu et al. (2000) √
The HEC-RAS model (Brunner, 2016a and 2016b) can also compute sediment
transport capacity using the following equations:
• Ackers and White
• Engelund and Hansen
• Larsen
75
• Meyer-Peter and Müller

• Taffaleti
• Yang
The BAGS computer software (Bed load Assessment in Gravel Bed Rivers) is a
simple, easy to use transport model for uniform flow at individual cross sections
that is applicable to compute bed load in gravel-bed rivers. It is prepared by and
available for free from the USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station (Pitlick,
2009).
Step 4b: estimate the probability of sediment

impact
For purposes of these guidelines, the relative reservoir sediment volume is
associated with the probability of sediment related impacts associated with dam
removal. The relative reservoir sediment volume is defined as the ratio of the
sediment volume to the average annual sediment load (Ts) (Figure 16). The ratio
Ts represents the years of upstream sediment load that is presently stored within
the reservoir. A logarithmic scale is used to classify Ts into negligible, small,
medium, and large reservoir sediment volumes. The larger the reservoir sediment
volume or mass (relative to the average annual sediment load), the greater the
probability of impact. The relative reservoir sediment volume was defined by
Randle and Greimann (2006) and the Ts is essentially the same as V* defined by
Major et al. (2017).
For reservoirs that are much wider than the river channel or that have cohesive
sediment, the analysis may need to estimate the proportion of sediment that would
actually be eroded from the reservoir over short and long-term time periods. If the
reservoir sediment contains contaminants above concentrations of management
concern, the probability of impact increases.
Dam removal analysis guidelines for sediment decision question: Is there

only a negligible risk of sediment impacts?
For cases of little or no sediment, the risk is assumed to be negligible and the
guideline user is directed to a special section in the guidelines (Cases of
“negligible” reservoir sediment) to address this circumstance. Negligible sediment
impact may be common for removal of low-head dams.
The uncertainty of the reservoir sediment volume is typically greatest at the

beginning of the analysis. Additional data collection may be necessary to reduce
this uncertainty to an acceptable level before completing the final iteration of the
dam removal analysis guidelines for sediment steps.
76
Figure 16.—Relative probability of sediment impact based on ratio of reservoir

sediment volume or mass (Vs) to average annual sediment load (Qs).
Sediment-related effects tend to diminish with distance downstream because of

tributary inflows of water and sediment along with deposition along the channel.
Coarse sediment-related effects also tend to diminish with increasing distance
downstream because coarse sediment waves are attenuated and they lose mass
through deposition with distance downstream. For example, infrastructure 1 km
below the dam could be at a higher risk from greater sediment deposition than a
project 10 km downstream of the dam. In addition, sediment impacts may
diminish with time after dam removal because rates of reservoir sediment erosion
diminish with time. However, coarse sediment initially released and deposited in
the channel is likely to be subsequently reworked during future high flows. This
lag in transport can delay the peak impact at downstream locations, particularly
for dam removals with large sediment releases (multiple years of average annual
load). The probability of sediment impact may, in some cases, be reduced when
computing the risk of consequences for concerns far downstream from the dam.
Example calculations
For the removal of Chiloquin Dam on the Sprague River near the town of
Chiloquin, OR, two independent methods were used to estimate the reservoir
sediment volume (Randle and Daraio, 2003):
1. A longitudinal profile and cross section method.
2. A sediment thickness and area method.
A predam topographic map was not available for the reservoir area. Prior to dam
removal, a bathymetric survey of the reservoir was performed and a longitudinal
profile was plotted along the reservoir bottom (Figure 17). The slope of the
predam channel bottom was estimated by assuming a straight line between the
downstream channel and the upstream portion of the reservoir. The estimated
predam profile is likely lower than the actual profile so that reservoir sediment
volume is over estimated rather than underestimated. Cross sections of the
reservoir bottom were plotted and a predam channel was estimated to coincide
with the longitudinal profile of the predam channel. Enough reservoir cross
77
sections are needed to describe geometric variations in the reservoir. An example

cross section is presented in Figure 18.
Chiloquin Dam Reservoir Profile

1277
1276
1275
Elevation (m)
1274
1273
Water Surface
1272 Reservoir/Channel Thalweg

Predam Thalweg Estimate
1271
1.2
1.8 1.42.0 1.6
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
Longitudinal Distance (km)
Figure 17.—Longitudinal profiles of the reservoir behind Chiloquin Dam.
Reservoir Cross Section (1.503 km)

1295
Pre-Dam Channel bottom estimate
Reservoir Bottom before Dam Removal
1290
Elevation (m)
1285
1280
1275
1270
0 15050 200100 250 300
Lateral Station (m)
Figure 18.—Example reservoir cross section plot.
78
An estimate of the reservoir sediment volume (Vs) was computed by summing the
product of cross-sectional area of the sediment and the incremental reservoir
length. The estimated reservoir sediment volume using this method was 35,000
m3 (45,000 yd3).
𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠 = � 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 (∆𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 )
Where Vs is the reservoir sediment volume

Ai is the cross-sectional area of the reservoir sediment at cross section i
Δxi is the longitudinal distance half-way upstream and downstream to the
next cross sections.
Reservoir sediment thickness was also estimated by divers using thickness probes.
Based on these measurements, the average sediment thickness was computed for
the downstream and upstream areas of the reservoir (Figure 19). The average
sediment thickness was then multiplied by the respective planimetric area. The
estimated reservoir sediment volume using this method was 27,000 m3 (36,000
yd3).
The two methods both produced reservoir sediment volumes that are tens of
thousands of cubic meters and both methods were applied in a way to
conservatively overestimate the reservoir sediment volume.
Figure 19.—Aerial photograph of the reservoir behind Chiloquin Dam.
79
STEP 5: REFINE POTENTIAL SEDIMENT-RELATED

CONSEQUENCES AND ESTIMATE RISK
For a dam removal project, risk is defined as the chance of harmful effects to
human resources (e.g. water quality, land, and infrastructure) or to ecological
systems (e.g. aquatic or terrestrial species) resulting from exposure to an
environmental stressor, in this case the release of reservoir sediment. For dam
removal, risk is computed as the product of the probability of a sediment impact
and the consequence of that impact. The probability of a sediment impact is based
on the relative reservoir sediment volume from Step 4. Consequences are assessed
qualitatively, as described in Steps 5a and 5b, and then applied in a matrix with
the probability of impact to estimate the qualitative risk in Step 5c.
Step 5a: identify consequences

A list of potential sediment-related consequences should be generated for the
project by building upon sediment concerns identified in Step 1b while also
considering sediment benefits identified in Step 1c. The level of consequences
may have to be estimated qualitatively. The degree of consequence from releasing
reservoir sediment can be determined by considering the dominant particle grain
size and duration of impact.
For each consequence, the following questions should be answered:

• Where is the potential sediment impact concern located relative to the
dam?
• Is there available fine or coarse reservoir sediment to cause an impact?
• When are the sediment impact concerns expected to occur (during dam
removal, seasonal, all year)?
• Are the consequences expected to occur over the short term (during and
immediately after dam removal) or long term (persisting for years to
decades)?
The sediment grain size stored in the reservoir will play a role in the expected
consequences and it may be useful to differentiate fine from coarse sediment
consequences. Reservoir sediment deposits composed largely of fine sediment are
most likely to result in elevated suspended sediment concentrations and turbidity
levels along with floodplain deposition. However, if the fine sediment has
cohesive properties, erosion may take longer until larger flood peaks occur.
Releasing coarse sediment may lead to deposition along the channel and filling of
river pools. Excessive coarse sediment deposition may result in stream bank
erosion, channel alignment changes, and increased flood stage. Coarse sediment
81
Step 5: refine potential sediment-related consequences and estimate risk
deposition could bury water intakes and impair water treatment operations. Sand-
sized sediment can also be transported as suspended load, particularly during peak
flows, and add to the turbidity from clay and silt-sized particles and floodplain
deposition.
The consequences of a sediment-related effect depend on the magnitude and

duration of the impact and if there is recovery after the impact is over.
The short and long-term sediment effects from dam removal can be very different.
For example, the concentrations of sediment eroded and released from the
reservoir will be initially high and then decrease to very small levels over the long
term.
It is important to limit the potential consequences to what may actually occur
based on the available reservoir volume and the proportions of fine and coarse
sediment. For example, Savage Rapids Reservoir near Grants Pass, Oregon had
98% coarse sediment stored in the reservoir with only 2% fine sediment (Bountry
et al. 2013). There was initially concern about the potential for water quality
impacts and release of contaminants. However, for this example, the sediment
analysis emphasis was focused on coarse sediment because no contaminants were
found above screening-level concentrations and the fine sediment volume was too
small to cause any significant water quality impacts. During the actual dam
removal, only small spikes in turbidity occurred that were limited in duration
(hours to days) and no greater in magnitude than during a typical storm event
(Bountry et al. 2013; Tullos et al. 2016).
Consequences can also depend on regulations and the perception of stakeholders

about the resources of concern. Public education and outreach regarding hydraulic
and sediment processes may be a useful way to help the public understand what
the actual sediment effects may be and a collaborative way of determining the
level of potential consequences to resources and stakeholders.
Although the release of reservoir sediment may have temporary consequences for
water quality and channel substrate, dam removal may provide long-term benefits
(e.g., restoration of fish and boat passage, elimination of dam safety problems)
that offset the short-term consequences. At small dams up to 30 feet high, the
majority of the reservoir sediment that is going to erode usually does so within 2
to 3 years (MacBroom and Schiff, 2013).
Step 5b: rank consequences

List and qualitatively group the potential consequences of impacts to resources
into low, moderate, and high categories so that, when combined with the
probability of impact, the risk can be estimated. Ranking of consequences may be
subjective and determined through a discussion with stakeholders to determine
level of concern for potential consequences should they occur.
82
For a given dam removal project, there may be a wide range of potential
consequences ranging from low to high. For determining the level of data
collection, analysis, and modeling, it is recommended to take the highest
consequence associated with coarse or fine sediment.
Examples of low consequences are where there is no infrastructure, recreation

use, or property that could be impacted by the release of reservoir sediment, such
as in an undeveloped canyon reach of river that is not easily accessible or open to
public use. In addition, sediment-related impacts would not threaten the continued
existence of threatened or endangered species. Other types of low consequence
might include natural resources that would be perceived to benefit from changes
due to released sediment, such as release of spawning gravels, recovery of habitat
beneath the reservoir, or reconnection of the channel with adjacent wetlands and
floodplains.
Medium consequences might include cases where sediment-related impacts cause

temporary (days to weeks) problems for downstream water intakes or the aquatic
ecosystem. Medium consequences could also be temporary halts to recreation use
or public access within impacted areas. Medium consequences could also be
applied to address uncertainty among stakeholders where the consequence is not
low or high.
Examples of large consequences would include streambed aggradation that leads

to flooding or erosion of property or infrastructure. Another large consequence
would be increased sediment concentrations making it difficult or impossible for
water users to obtain water for beneficial uses. Another example of a large
consequence could be increases to sediment concentrations that would threaten
the continued existence of threatened or endangered species.
Step 5c: compute risk of sediment impact

Once the consequences have been estimated, the risk of sediment impacts can be
estimated using the matrix provided in Table 6. The level of sediment analysis
and modeling is then guided by the level of risk. Regulatory documents may use
the term “exposure” of a sediment stressor rather than probability (U.S. EPA,
1992). The exposure of a sediment stressor depends on the physical and chemical
sediment properties.
The probability of the sediment impact is typically based on the total amount of
sediment stored in the reservoir. However, there may be cases where there is
value in looking at probabilities of fine and coarse sediment separately or only
one size category if it is the dominant sediment size.
83
Step 5: refine potential sediment-related consequences and estimate risk
Table 6.—Matrix to estimate the risk of sediment impacts from the probability of
occurrence and the consequence should the impact occur.
Probability of Consequence of Sediment Impact
fine or coarse
sediment Small Medium Large
impact
Small Low Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk
Medium Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk
Large Moderate Risk High Risk High Risk
84
STEP 6: DEVELOP DAM REMOVAL AND

SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Once the level of risk from sediment impacts is determined in Step 5, the
guideline user must develop a dam removal and sediment management plan in
Step 6. Because the dam removal plan influences the rate and potentially the
magnitude of sediment erosion, the dam removal and sediment management plans
should be developed together. This information can then be used to guide the
analysis of sediment impacts in Step 7. Where Federal actions or decisions are
involved (including the granting of permits), a range of reasonable sediment
management alternatives must be considered to meet the project purpose and
need.
Low or moderate risk cases - For reservoirs with a negligible, small, or moderate
risk of sediment impact without presence of contaminants (see Step 5 and Table
6), initially assume rapid and complete dam removal with reservoir sediment
eroded by available stream flows. This initial assumption should be changed, or
mitigation should be added to the sediment management plan, if subsequent
analyses reveal impacts that would be unacceptable to stakeholders. The initial
assumption of rapid and complete dam removal is meant to consider the river
erosion alternative before considering other sediment management options that
are potentially more expensive.
High risk cases - For reservoirs having a high risk of downstream sediment
impact (see Step 5 and Table 6), rapid dam removal and release of all stored
sediment may, at least temporarily, overwhelm the channel and aquatic
environment. Rapid and complete dam removal may be considered, but such a
choice is unnecessary where unacceptable impacts to resources are obvious.
Step 6a: Develop the dam removal plan

The dam removal alternative identifies whether all or only part of the dam will be
removed, and whether the dam will be breached rapidly or in stages. There are
many alternative methods to removing a dam depending on the type of material
(concrete, earth, rock, etc.). These methods include mechanical excavation or
demolition, blasting, or cutting (USSD, 2015). Some dams are partially breached
and drained ahead of full dam removal. The selection of a dam removal strategy
may incorporate how the timing of flow and sediment releases to the downstream
channel would affect resources. For example, dam removal may be selected
during in-water work periods, during a low-flow period that avoids critical aquatic
species use, or timed to occur just before a storm event. The Guidelines for Dam
Decommissioning Projects (USSD, 2015) is a good reference for dam removal
alternatives and methods.
85
Step 6: develop dam removal and sediment management alternatives
The construction or installation of coffer dams for dam removal may be

necessary, but do not automatically assume they are needed because they can
significantly increase project costs. When contracting for dam removal, focus the
specifications on the desired outcomes during and after dam removal and not the
methods to be employed by the contractor. This can result in substantial cost
savings compared with contracts that specify methods. The construction of coffer
dams may introduce additional sediment and potentially increase the probability
of sediment impact for negligible and small cases. Failure of a coffer dam can add
to sediment impacts.
The following paragraphs describe a range of factors that should be considered

when developing the dam removal plan.
Full or partial dam removal

The type of material used to construct a dam (concrete, masonry, rock fill, or
earth) is important for determining how much of the dam to remove, the volume
of material for disposal, and the removal process itself (USSD, 2015 and ASCE,
1997). All of the dam may be removed or portions may be left behind for
historical preservation or to retain sediment. Complete dam removal means the
complete removal of the dam and all associated facilities. However, a partial dam
removal could be a less expensive alternative that preserves a portion of the
historical structure. For example, removing only the portions of the dam that
block fish passage could be less expensive than completely removing all
structures. Spillways, power plants, penstocks, and dikes could be left behind for
historical preservation or utilized in the future operation of the project. For
example, Sunol and Niles dams on Alameda Creek in California were partially
removed to reduce costs while still meeting the project objectives of restoring
anadromous steelhead passage and removing a public safety hazard (Marcin
Whitman, electronic communication, August 2017). Any remaining structures
would have to be left in a safe condition and may require periodic maintenance. A
portion of the dam could also be left behind to retain reservoir sediment or to
reduce flood peaks. This could mean removing only the portion of the dam
blocking the river channel and retaining portions of the dam along the predam
floodplain or reservoir margins.
Where a dam spans a valley width that is significantly wider than the river
channel, a portion of the dam could be removed from the old river channel and the
remaining dam left in place to help retain a significant portion of the reservoir
sediments. A portion of Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River in Oregon was
left behind to help protect a downstream pumping plant from damage during
floods and for historical preservation (Figure 20). The former spillway and new
walkway at Glines Canyon Dam on the Elwha River in Washington was left in
place to save cost, allow public viewing access of the project, and for historic
preservation.
86
Figure 20.—A portion of Savage Rapids Dam (near Grants Pass, OR) was removed
to allow fish passage while the remaining portion helps to protect a downstream
pumping plant.
A partial dam removal could also mean that only the upper portion of the dam is
removed, while the lower portion is left in place to retain reservoir sediments
deposited below that elevation. This alternative may reduce or eliminate any dam
safety concerns by eliminating or reducing the size of the reservoir, but fish
passage facilities might still be required. The lowest portion of the dam could be
retained to act as a grade control to prevent any downstream channel degradation
that may have occurred from progressing upstream after dam removal. This was
successfully done at the Zemko Dam in 2007 in Connecticut (MacBroom and
Schiff, 2014) and Stage Coach Dam on San Luis Obispo Creek in California
(Marcin Whitman written communication, March 9, 2017). The lowest portion of
the dam could also be retained to act as a barrier to prevent the upstream
migration of exotic aquatic species.
Potential barriers to sediment erosion

Erosion resistant materials within the reservoir could create fish or boat passage
problems after dam removal and prevent erosion of reservoir sediments. Erosion
resistant materials may also slow the rate of bank erosion, thus slowing the
recovery of a natural landscape in the former reservoir area, as well as prolonging
the potential for sediment impacts downstream from the dam site. If erosion-
resistant materials or structures are encountered, then mechanical removal may be
necessary.
Remnant structures that span the restored channel can create undesired grade
control after dam removal and slow or stall upstream progression of sediment
erosion. For example, following the removal of a 6-m (19.7 ft) high dam on
87
Amethyst Brook in Massachusetts, the channel headcut upstream and encountered

an old timber crib dam that had been buried in the reservoir sediment (Magilligan
et al., 2015). Historical blasting of hillslopes, construction of cofferdams,
tunneling, and removal of bedrock or soil can all result in permanent changes to
the landscape. At some sites historical dam failures may also have affected the
channel elevation. For example, Lake Aldwell formed upstream of Elwha Dam
(Elwha River, Washington) failed upon first filling creating a 70 ft scour hole
beneath the dam, hillslope failures from the rapid reservoir drawdown, and scour
in the downstream river. The logistics of removing remnant structures with the
dam in place may be much easier, and much less expensive, than waiting until
after dam removal. This is especially true if dam operations are used to divert
flow around the work area. For example, it may be possible to use dam outlets,
penstocks, or spillways to divert river flows around short reaches of river where
boulders, structures, or debris may exist. The removal of boulders, old structures,
and debris after dam removal will be more difficult if they are partially or fully
buried by sediment and construction debris from the dam removal. In addition,
these features would have to be removed under active river-flow conditions.
Substantial legacy dams associated with 19th century logging drives and sawmills
were found in the Penobscot River in Maine at the Veazie and Great Works Dams
removal sites. Early detection enabled engineered plans to breach them to allow
for fish, sediment, and small boat passage (MacBroom and Schiff, 2013).
Reservoir drawdown
For small capacity reservoirs, reservoir drawdown may occur within a few hours
and have minimal impact on downstream river stage. For large reservoirs, the rate
of reservoir drawdown needs to be slow enough to avoid a flood wave from the
reservoir that would cause downstream flood damages. Also, the drawdown rate
needs to be slow enough to avoid inducing any potential landslides along the
reservoir margins or a slide failure of any earthen dams.
Dam removal projects often require an initial reservoir drawdown to expose

portions of the infrastructure and reservoir sediment before construction activities
can commence. For dam removals that include an initial drawdown, sediment
erosion should be expected when the drawdown elevation intercepts or is near the
elevation of the reservoir sediment deposits. The ability to drawdown the
reservoir pool depends on how flows are released through, over, or around the
dam. If the dam has low-level, high-capacity outlet works or a diversion tunnel,
the reservoir could be emptied at a prescribed rate and the dam could be removed
under dry conditions. However, if the width of the outlet works is narrow relative
to the reservoir sediment width, then a substantial proportion of sediment could
remain in the reservoir until the dam is removed. A bypass channel could be
constructed around the dam, but it would need the ability to at least partially drain
the reservoir. For concrete dams, it may be acceptable to release flows over the
dam or through notches cut into the dam (USSD, 2015 and ASCE, 1997). A series
of notches were cut into Glines Canyon Dam to release flow downstream during
88
dam removal (Figure 21). A large tunnel was drilled and blasted through the
bottom of Condit Dam to rapidly drain the reservoir and eroded sediments
(Wilcox et al., 2014).
Figure 21.—A series of notches were cut into Glines Canyon Dam (near Port
Angeles, WA) with a hydraulic hammer to release river flows downstream during
dam removal.
Dam removal and reservoir drawdown plans must prepare for the possibility of
floods occurring during dam removal. The occurrence of a flood may simply
mean the temporary halt of dam removal and reservoir drawdown activities.
However, a flood overtopping the dam could cause failure of the remaining
structure and a downstream flood wave that could be many times larger than the
reservoir inflow. If the remaining structure can withstand overtopping flows, then
floods may help erode and redistribute sediments throughout the reservoir.
Some recreationalists may have a strong desire to be among the first to boat or
swim the stream channel through the former dam site after initial reservoir
drawdown. However, this can be quite dangerous, and even deadly, because the
temporarily high turbidity will obscure the view of rapidly changing channel
conditions and channel debris. Tragically, a boater was killed the day Savage
Rapids Dam was breached because a motorized boat traveling through the former
reservoir unexpectedly struck a shallow bottom and possibly debris that could not
be seen (Bountry, 2013). For this reason, boaters and swimmers must be kept
away from the former dam and reservoir site until reservoir and channel
conditions are no longer rapidly evolving (i.e. changing daily) and high turbidity
levels have dropped.
89
Phased dam removal

The rate of removal and reservoir drawdown has a strong influence on the rate
that sediments are eroded and transported downstream. The effects from releasing
a large volume of reservoir sediment downstream can be reduced by slowing the
rate of dam removal and reservoir drawdown. This might be accomplished by
progressively removing layers of the dam over a period of weeks, months, or
years, depending on the size of the dam and the volume and composition of the
reservoir sediments. However, that phasing of dam removal will also extend the
period of high sediment concentration and turbidity in the river. It is possible that
both a rapid and phased removal will need to be analyzed to compare the impacts.
The rate and timing of phased or incremental reservoir drawdown should meet the
following general criteria:
• The reservoir discharge rate is slow enough that a downstream flood or
reservoir slope instability does not occur.
• The release of coarse sediment is slow enough so that any riverbed
aggradation does not cause flooding to people and property along the
downstream river channel.
• The concentration of fine sediment released downstream is not too great,
or its duration so long, so that it overwhelms downstream water users or
causes unacceptable impacts to the aquatic environment.
For cases with a coarse sediment delta, the duration of constant reservoir
elevation between drawdown increments (a few weeks to a few months) should
correspond to the length of time necessary for the river channel to erode exposed
sediment and redeposit it across the width of the receded reservoir.
If the hydrology is not adequate to mobilize the reservoir sediment, additional
time may be required for channel headcut erosion to progress to the upstream end
of the reservoir. The total time required for hold periods (weeks to months) will
depend on stream flows, the length of the reservoir sediment deposit, erodibility
of the sediment, and objectives of the hold periods.
If phased dam removal is necessary, develop a plan that will reduce the risk of
sediment impacts by incrementally releasing a manageable amount of sediment
that can be transported by the downstream channel. For example, a dam with a
reservoir containing a coarse sediment volume equivalent to 40 years of average
annual sediment supply, could be removed over a four-year period.
This rate of phased dam removal could be slowed if subsequent analyses reveal
unacceptable impacts (e.g. increased flood stage or avulsion from channel
aggradation or burial of critical infrastructure or habitat). The rate could be
increased if impacts are much lower than thresholds where harm occurs although
uncertainty and factors of safety should be considered.
90
The phased release of fine sediment needs to consider the downstream

concentration and duration of suspended sediment and acceptable impacts to the
aquatic environment and water users. High concentrations of suspended sediment
over a short duration will impact fewer year classes or generations of aquatic
species than lower sediment concentrations of sediment over a long duration of
time. However, water users may not be able to divert and treat water with
excessively high sediment concentrations.
Step 6b. Develop sediment management

alternatives
Once a decision is made to remove a dam, a decision is needed to determine what
will be done with the former reservoir area. The selection of a reservoir sediment
management strategy often depends on the vision for the post-removal reservoir
landscape, along with tolerance for downstream sediment releases. Sediment
management may also include the excavation of a pilot channel to initiate river
erosion along a prescribed alignment through the reservoir or mechanically
shaping the remaining reservoir sediments to remain in a more stable condition. In
an age of heightened environmental sensitivity, green or natural river erosion
approaches are finding a strong foothold in the restoration and rehabilitation of
stream ecosystems.
Sediment management alternatives can be grouped into four general categories

(ASCE, 1997):
1. No action. Leave the existing dam and reservoir sediments in place. If the
reservoir-sediment storage capacity is not already full, then either allow future
sedimentation to continue or reduce the sediment trap efficiency to enhance
the life of the reservoir.
2. River erosion. Allow rivers flows to erode the reservoir sediment.
3. Mechanical removal. Remove part or all of the reservoir sediment by
hydraulic dredging, mechanical dredging, or conventional excavation for
long-term storage at an appropriate disposal site (see USACE, 2015 for more
information on dredging).
a. Hydraulic dredging operations remove sediment by fluidizing and
pumping the material to the processing location.
b. Mechanical dredging operations capture the sediment in wet
conditions, and then lift the captured material to the surface onto a
barge or other platform for transport and processing.
c. Excavation uses similar equipment as mechanical dredging, but
operators isolate a segment of the sediment and water column in an
enclosure, dewater the enclosure, and remove the exposed
sediment using conventional land-based excavation equipment.
91
4. Stabilization. Engineer a river channel through or around the reservoir

sediment and provide erosion protection to stabilize part or all the
reservoir sediment over the long term.
A sediment management plan can also consist of a combination of these

categories. For example, fine sediment could be mechanically removed from the
downstream portion of the reservoir to reduce the impacts on water quality. At the
same time, the river could be allowed to erode coarse sediments from the
reservoir delta to resupply gravel for fish spawning in the downstream river
channel.
No action
A no action alternative is often required by the federal National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) or state regulatory agencies to compare baseline conditions
with proposed alternatives. If no action is selected, the dam, reservoir, and
sediment would be left in place. For reservoirs that are full of sediment, future
floods, sluicing, and dredging can cause temporary changes in sediment storage,
but the inflowing sediments are generally transported through the reservoir pool.
If the reservoir is not already full of sediment, future sedimentation will continue.
The life of the reservoir may be extended by reducing the upstream sediment
loads, bypassing sediment through or around the reservoir, or removing the
existing sediment by sluicing or dredging. If the reservoir continues to trap
sediment, the remaining reservoir capacity will eventually be filled with sediment,
but this could take decades to occur, depending on the reservoir size and the
upstream sediment loads. Reservoir sedimentation at the dam may also plug low-
level dam outlets, requiring dredging or flushing and likely a change in reservoir
operations. Eventually, reservoir sedimentation will cause velocities through the
reservoir to increase and subsequently decrease the sediment trap efficiency.
River erosion
Allow the river to erode sediment from the reservoir through natural processes,
sometimes referred to as passive sediment management. This option may include
a pilot channel to initiate erosion processes. Some dam removals have formed a
cofferdam out of reservoir sediment that is allowed to breach and erode. Dams
with gates or outlets may consider drawdown to initiate partial reservoir erosion.
The river erosion alternative potentially has the least cost, but results in the
greatest amount of sediment released to the downstream channel and potentially
the greatest amount of uncertainty. Sediment concentration depends directly on
the rate of reservoir drawdown, which is often associated with the rate of dam
removal. This alternative has been utilized on dams of a range of sizes, including
Chiloquin Dam on the Sprague River in Oregon (Randle and Daraio, 2003), Gold
Hill Dam (WaterWatch, 2017a), Savage Rapids Dam (Bountry et al. 2013), and
92
Gold Ray Dam on the Rogue River in Oregon (WaterWatch, 2017b), Marmot
Dam on the Sandy River in Oregon (Major et al. 2008), Condit Dam on the White
River in Washington (Wilcox et al. 2014), and Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams
on the Elwha River in Washington (Randle et al. 2015). The dam removal plan
associated with these projects included both rapid and phased reservoir
drawdowns.
For most small reservoir sediment volumes, the dam is completely removed and a
high percentage of the reservoir sediment is expected to erode. However, there
may be cases where some of the dam is left in place and this may limit the amount
of sediment erosion, especially if the dam is not removed all the way down to the
predam river bed. Alternatively, if portions of the dam are left in place along the
left or right abutments, then some reservoir sediment near the dam may not be
eroded. For reservoir sediment deposits that are much wider than the river
channel, the lateral extent of reservoir erosion may be limited to a few channel
widths. If the reservoir sediment is cohesive or becomes quickly vegetated after
dam removal, this may reduce the extent and rate of lateral erosion.
Initially, reservoir sediment erosion is a function of the base level adjustment at

the dam site and largely independent of flow. Higher flows capable of mobilizing
reservoir sediment may be required to initiate lateral erosion and/or progression of
headcuts depending on the grain size, slope, and cohesive properties of the
sediment.
Mechanical removal
The mechanical removal alternative is typically the most expensive, but may be
necessary when sediments are contaminated and must be removed from the
system. Mechanical removal may be selected when impacts to downstream water
quality and aquatic habitat are not acceptable and the cost of removing sediment
is feasible.
An example is the 7.9 m high Hemlock Dam in Washington State with

predominantly sand-size reservoir sediment (42,000 m3) that was removed to
minimize risk to downstream fish habitat (Figure 22; Randle and Greimann, 2004;
Claeson and Coffin, 2015). After removal of the sand, a channel was cut in the
historical path, the floodplain sculpted, 2,000 m3 of gravel and cobble were added,
and native vegetation planted to the former reservoir area to facilitate recovery
(Claeson and Coffin, 2015).
93
Figure 22.—Hemlock Dam site, Washington. A - looking upstream at dam. B -

Looking upstream at reservoir sedimentation and lake prior to dam removal. C -
Looking downstream at Trout Creek about 0.8 km downstream of dam.
If mechanical removal is required, evaluating potential alternate beneficial uses of

the reservoir sediment can be accomplished using guidance such as the federal
beneficial use planning manual (U.S. EPA and USACE, 2007). For example,
dredged reservoir sediment may be utilized to accomplish beach restoration in
areas that have eroded. Dredged reservoir gravel may be used in reaches where
gravel is needed for spawning habitat.
Methods of mechanical removal are briefly described in the USSD dam removal
guidelines (2015). They include conventional, mechanical or hydraulic dredging
along with mechanical sediment conveyance including transport by sediment
slurry pipeline, truck, and conveyor belt. Use of conventional earth moving
equipment to move or remove sediment is a common practice at small dams and
is affordable if proper disposal sites are nearby. It usually requires installation of
temporary haul roads if the sediment is too weak to support equipment.
94
Sediment stabilization
The reservoir stabilization alternative can be a cost effective way of preventing
sediment from entering the downstream channel, so long as the stabilization
measures do not catastrophically fail at some point in the future. However, there
are limited cases that document the success of stabilization over long time periods
following dam removal (e.g. no future erosion). The challenge is to design a
stable channel and floodplain within a dynamic environment adjusting to a base
level lowering. If reservoir sediment can be relocated to terraces above the
predam floodplain that are not predicted to erode, then they will have much less
impact on future river processes and be much less subject to river erosion.
Vegetation planting can be incorporated to help stabilize sediment. The extent to
which vegetation can stabilize deposits will depend on several factors:
1. The location of the deposit relative to high-river flows. If the deposit will
be exposed to high velocities, then vegetation may not permanently
stabilize the sediment. If the deposit is located in an area that will be
above the floodplain, then erosion can only occur through overland flow
and geotechnical processes.
2. The thickness of the sediment deposit relative to the depth of the root zone
of the species that will recolonize. For high sediment terraces that are
much thicker than the root depth, it may be impossible to adequately
stabilize them with vegetation. Streambank protection may be needed to
stabilize high reservoir terrace banks.
3. The soil texture and nutrients of the deposit. If the deposit is composed of
primarily coarse sediment, then it will be difficult to establish vegetation
because the deposit will not retain the moisture or nutrients necessary for
plant growth.
4. The depth to groundwater after dam removal. If the deposit is well above
the future groundwater elevations, then it will be difficult to establish and
maintain woody riparian species such as willow and cottonwoods.
For the San Clemente Dam removal, the Carmel River was rerouted in order to
stabilize sediment on that side of the former reservoir. The stabilized sediment
was not significantly eroded after several floods in 2017, at least one exceeding
the 10-year flood peak (Amy East, written communication, 2017). Prior to the
2017 floods, knickpoint erosion migrated through the Carmel River upstream
from stabilized reservoir sediment. This upstream channel erosion released sand
and gravel downstream that filled pools and replenished formerly depleted
spawning gravel along the downstream channel.
At some sites, infrastructure such as bridges may exist upstream of the dam site
within the reservoir sediment deposit or upstream channel or tributaries that enter
the reservoir. If the infrastructure has piers or embankments in or near the channel
banks, the structure could be at risk from headcut or knickpoint erosion following
95
dam removal. At the 2011 Briggsville Dam removal in Massachusetts, undersized

abutment riprap was grouted in places and successfully withstood Hurricane Irene
(written communication Jim MacBroom, March 3, 2017). Infrastructure can be
relocated, setback, or altered to reduce the risk of failure. Alternatively, grade
structures could be installed to stabilize the channel bed and limit incision of
reservoir sediments. However, care should be taken to design the foundations of
grade control structures deep enough so they are not undermined.
Channel Formation in Former Reservoir

In some dam removal projects, sediment management plans may include
excavating a pilot channel or creating a new channel and floodplain within the
reservoir. These methods are employed at sites where stakeholders want more
certainty about the future reservoir landscape. However, some sites with regraded
and shaped channels have failed during storm events. Another common
alternative is to allow the river to reshape the channel and floodplain within the
former reservoir and to utilize adaptive management, when necessary, to shift
river position or modify localized areas.
Excavation of pilot channels

Some reservoirs are many times wider than the river channel and have relatively
thick delta deposits (more than 10 feet) at the upstream end of the reservoir. In
this case, it may be desirable to initiate erosion along the central portion of the
delta surface through an excavated pilot channel (Figure 23). The pilot channel
will encourage more uniform lateral erosion across the reservoir deposit. For
thinner or cohesive deposits, the pilot channel alignment could be located to
coincide with the predam channel alignment if that is known and important to
restore. Care should be taken to avoid establishing a pilot channel at a location
where channel incision could reach bedrock (or some other erosion resistant
material) that is higher than the predam channel. If this occurs, the channel could
become perched on bedrock and result in fish passage problems, greatly limit the
lateral erosion of reservoir sediment terraces, and prevent or slow the channel
from finding its original predam course along the valley bottom (Bromley et al.
2011). Mechanical removal and/or placement of sediment, large woody debris or
other flow deflectors or obstructions may be required to help guide flow into the
pilot channel.
96
Figure 23.—A pilot channel excavated through the Lake Mills delta and alder forest
growing on the delta was cleared in preparation for the removal of Glines Canyon
Dam near Port Angeles, Washington (photograph courtesy of Bureau of
Reclamation, December 2010).
Creation of new channel and floodplain

In urban environments, there can be significant public support as well as scientific
environmental justification to create the ultimate channel as part of the project.
There are a variety of approaches that can be utilized. These fall under the
following two, broad categories of restoration and reclamation.
Restoration: Remove or rework the accumulated sediment with the goal of re-
creating the historic channel. This holistic approach does not focus on individual
elements but would seek the reestablishment of the structure and function of the
system to a predam condition.
Reclamation: Create a new channel within the existing reservoir sediment. The
goal of this approach would be to restore the bio-physical capacity of the
ecosystem while accepting that its structure might be different than the original
morphology. A stable-channel-design approach is needed to help ensure the
channel is viable over the long term.
As an example, Idylwilde Dam in Colorado on the Big Thompson River was

removed by the city of Loveland and the U.S. Forest Service after being severely
damaged by a flood in 2013. The 191,000 m3 (250,000 yds3) of reservoir sediment
stored behind the dam was removed and used as fill material to repair several
roads damaged by the flood. The remaining sediment was reshaped to recreate a
stream channel “near where it likely historically had been in relationship to the
valley” (Cloudman, 2014).
Either restoration or reclamation can be applied depending on the desires of

decision makers and stakeholders, the physical constraints of the system, the
97
conditions under which a dam is removed, and funding. Successful and

sustainable stream work requires a thorough, contextual understanding of
dynamic physical, chemical, and biological processes; risks and limitations; and
range of applications for appropriate tools. It also involves weighing the wide
array of management and intervention options that can be used to attain the
desired and achievable condition. The overall stream restoration planning process
should result in clear and obtainable goals, which should be implemented through
appropriate designs.
Fortunately, there are a rich system of existing guides used to treat or restore
streams which cover the full range of treatments, from natural to management to
structural. Several federal agencies have compiled guidance into collections that
are acceptable to the practitioner (USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service, 1998; Copeland et al. 2001, USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service, 2007). Many of the tools available in these stream restoration approaches
are applicable and have been used to address the pool area of a dam removal. In
addition, the hydrologic, hydraulic and sediment related data collected and
analysis conducted as part of the dam removal work is directly applicable to either
a reclamation or a restoration work in the pool area. The evaluation and
recommendation of specific approaches for specific conditions are beyond the
scope of this document.
Multiple dam removals

When multiple dams within a river watershed are being removed, the dam
removal and sediment management plans must incorporate how the water and
sediment released from the upper dams will influence sedimentation and erosion
in the downstream dams. Dam removal, and the subsequent erosion and release of
reservoir sediment, could be sequenced so that sediment from upstream reservoirs
does not redeposit in downstream reservoirs. If eroded reservoir sediment did
redeposit in a downstream reservoir, then there would be a superposition of
impacts as the volumes of reservoir sediment combined. The exact sequence
depends on the relative reservoir sizes, but generally would begin with the
downstream most dam and progress upstream, or occur simultaneously.
Alternatively, the downstream dam could be removed last so that the downstream
reservoir contained all or a significant portion of the upstream sediment. This
strategy could be used to shorten the duration of sediment impacts below the
downstream most dam. However, the downstream most dam, may not capture all
the fine sediment released from the upstream dams. If sediment is trapped behind
the downstream dam, the magnitude of the sediment release will be amplified. In
the case of the Elwha River Restoration Project, the removal of Elwha Dam and
Glines Canyon Dam began concurrently, but the removal of Elwha Dam was
completed first and prior to the arrival of the coarse sediment wave released past
Glines Canyon Dam. On the Upper Klamath River in Oregon, the simultaneous
removal of four dams is being planned: John C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco No.
2, and Iron Gate Dams (USSD, 2015). The dams are being removed
98
simultaneously primarily to limit the duration of high suspended sediment

concentrations.
99
STEP 7: CONDUCT SEDIMENT ANALYSIS BASED

ON RISK
The most common questions about sediment with regard to dam removal include:
• What will happen to the reservoir sediment and what will the effects be on
the aquatic environment, human use, infrastructure, and property?
• What will the new reservoir landscape look like after dam removal?
The answers to these questions, and their importance to stakeholders, largely

depend on the level of sediment risk. For the negligible risk category (cases with
little or no sediment), only simple calculations and comparisons are recommended
to verify that the reservoir sediment volume is very small relative to the potential
sediment storage areas of the downstream channel (see Cases of “negligible”
reservoir sediment).
First, the required level of effort (based on risk) needs to be determined. Then the
sediment effects related to dam removal can be predicted along with the
associated uncertainty. Development of a conceptual model, computations of total
stream power, and mass balance are recommended for the low, moderate, and
high sediment risk categories (Figure 24). Geomorphic analysis, sediment wave
modelling, and sediment transport capacity calculations are recommended for the
moderate and high risk categories. Numerical sediment transport modeling,
laboratory modeling, and field experiments are recommended for the high risk
category.
101
Step 7: conduct sediment analysis based on risk
Figure 24.—Sediment analysis and modeling options for each sediment risk
category.
The recommended level of quantitative analyses and modeling increases

progressively with risk and also varies with sediment grain size and the physical
setting. The sediment analyses and modeling strategies are described separately in
subsections of Step 7.
A sediment wave model can be used to simulate the downstream movement and
diffusion of the reservoir sediment (upon dam removal) as an elongated wave
through the downstream channel (Greimann et al., 2006 and Greimann, 2011).
Sediment wave models are recommended for moderate and high risk cases.
Aggradation problems for low risk cases are not common, but a sediment wave
model could be used to validate this assumption. The application of a sediment
wave model estimates how the coarse reservoir sediment deposition thickness
downstream from the dam site will vary over both distance and time. Calculations
of sediment transport capacity are recommended for the moderate sediment risk
category to estimate the rate that reservoir sediment can be moved downstream.
Numerical modeling, laboratory modeling, or field experiments are recommended
for high sediment risk categories to forecast the rates and amounts of sediment
erosion from the reservoir and the corresponding downstream rates and amounts
of sediment transport and deposition. Laboratory models, field experiments, and
numerical models can be used to help understand and simulate reservoir sediment
erosion and the downstream transport and deposition. Experiments work best
when hypotheses or predictions are made in advance to guide the measurements
and interpret the results.
102
In addition to risk, sediment analyses and modeling strategies can be linked to

three general impact categories:
1. Stream channel aggradation (sediment deposition)
2. Changes to water quality from increased sediment loads
3. Changes to ground water levels and permeability
The applicability of the sediment analyses and modeling to the impact categories
is presented in Table 7.
Table 7.—Applicability of sediment analyses and modeling to impact categories.

Sediment Impact Categories
Water
Sediment Analysis & Modeling Aggradation Quality Ground Water
Conceptual Model √ √ √
Empirical Reservoir Sediment
√ √
Erosion Estimates
Total Stream Power Calculations √
Mass Balance Calculations √
Sediment Wave Model √
Sediment Transport Capacity
√
Calculations
Geomorphic Analysis √ √ √
Numerical Modeling, Laboratory
√ √ √
Modeling, and Field Experiments
Develop a conceptual model

The conceptual model is mostly a qualitative description with supporting graphics
of what will happen to the reservoir sediment, including the effects on
downstream channel geomorphic process and forms, and what will happen to the
reservoir landscape and upstream channel after dam removal. This description
should include qualitative estimates regarding the proportion of reservoir
sediment expected to erode, a description of the downstream transport
mechanisms, and a description of sediment depositional areas over the short and
long term.
The conceptual model is developed from field inspection and measurements,

literature review, and professional experience. The conceptual model will
describe the important physical processes expected to occur as a result of dam
removal and guide the quantitative analyses and modeling tasks. The details of the
conceptual model, and the level of effort to develop it, will increase with the level
103
of sediment risk. The conceptual model should be a dynamic document updated

whenever new information becomes available.
Reservoir sediment erosion

An overview of reservoir sedimentation is presented in the Appendix A which
may help inform development of a conceptual model. The conceptual model that
addresses reservoir sediment erosion and downstream effects must address the
important physical processes and the sediment-related concerns of stakeholders. A
general conceptual model for erosion of reservoir sediment was developed by
Doyle et al. (2002 and 2003a) and later modified by Cannatelli and Curran
(2012). These general conceptual models were further modified for these dam
removal analysis guidelines for sediment (Figure 25). However, the sequences
and processes can be a bit different for an individual dam removal, so a site
specific conceptual model should be developed for each project.
The general conceptual model begins with water and sediment in the reservoir
(Figure 25a). Initial reservoir drawdown exposes a network of channels flowing
over the exposed sediments (Figure 25b). Continued reservoir drawdown results
in channel degradation (incision) with the fastest rates occurring in the channel
that conveys the most flow. Channel degradation advances upstream through
knickpoint or headcut migration, depending on the sediment grain size and stream
power. There may be initially several erosional channels that form, but it is likely
that the high flow channel will eventual capture all the flow as it erodes faster.
Channel incision could be limited by erosion resistant materials at the dam site,
either naturally occurring (bedrock, boulders or cobbles) or remnants of the dam
(e.g. boulders, timber piles, concrete, sheetpile, caisson 3) (Gartner et al. 2015).
For reservoirs with very thin layers of sediment, the underlying predam
geomorphology may control locations, rate, and extent of incision. If the reservoir
sediment has discontinuous patches of sediment such as in predam pools and
slackwater areas, sediment erosion processes in one patch may occur
independently from other patches.
Strongly cohesive sediment and bedrock can slow the rate of upstream headcut
migration to a very slow rate, especially during periods of low flow. For example,
during the phased removal of Brewster Creek Dam, Illinois, the headcut erosion
through this low gradient channel took over 7 years to progress through cohesive
sediment deposits and reach the upstream end of the former reservoir (Straub,
2007). Following removal of Dinner Creek Dam and Maple Gulch Dam in
Oregon, the headcuts at each site stalled when encountering a former bedrock
valley wall that confined the predam channels (Stewart, 2006). At Dinner Creek
Dam the second flood post-removal allowed the channel to erode through an alder
3
A watertight retaining structure that allows construction work to be carried out under dry
conditions.
104
forest and migrate off the bedrock. However, at Maple Gulch Dam the discharge
was intermittent and the channel remained perched above the original river bed at
the conclusion of the study.
Because reservoir deltas typically extend upstream from the reservoir pool,
headcut erosion will erode these upstream reservoir deposits (Figure 25c).
However, erosion is generally not expected to occur upstream through predam
sediments. Union City Dam was an exception because the river incised below the
predam river bed elevation (Wildman and MacBroom, 2005). An exposed
sanitary sewer pipe with rock riprap caused local downstream scour in the post-
dam removal channel. When the pipe failed, a headcut progressed upstream from
the scour location, which began about 0.5 m (1.6 ft) below the original river bed.
Because the bed was lower than the predam bed at Union City Dam, the incision
extended slightly farther upstream of the reservoir sedimentation effects.
In general, channel degradation and widening continues with reservoir drawdown

until the predam surface is reached. The extent and rate of channel widening
depends on the cohesive properties of the sediment at the river level, the location
of the incised channel relative to geologic controls (bedrock, etc.), the rate of
reservoir drawdown, and hydrology (Figure 25d).
Reservoir sediment erosion can be described in two phases (Pearson et al. 2011;
Major et al. 2012, Randle et al. 2015; Tullos et al. 2016, Major et al. 2017, Collins
et al. 2017). Erosional processes are initially dominated by the rate and amount of
reservoir lowering (first phase) rather than hydrology. The hydrology after dam
removal is primarily responsible in achieving the final equilibrium extent of
lateral reservoir sediment erosion (second phase). During the second phase,
additional erosion occurs when floods are large enough to go over bank and
access impounded sediments more distant from the newly-formed channel
(Collins et al. 2017) or when significant bank erosion occurs. The reservoir-valley
width influences the two-phase erosion responses.
105
Figure 25.—Conceptual model of sediment erosion from the reservoir modified

from Doyle et al. (2003a) and Cannatelli and Curran (2012).
The initial channel erosion width through the reservoir sediment is a function of
sediment cohesion, amount of reservoir drawdown, and the stream-flow
106
discharge. Erosion widths in non-cohesive sediment will tend to be wider than in

cohesive sediments. Bromley (2011) found that, during steady flow, larger
reservoir drawdown increments produced more erosion than smaller drawdown
increments for the same total reservoir drawdown. However, erosion channels
will tend to widen over time through lateral bend migration and braiding, which is
accelerated during periods of high stream flow. If the rate of reservoir drawdown
is slow, there will be more time for lateral erosion at higher elevations of the
reservoir. Conversely, if the rates of reservoir drawdown are fast, then channel
degradation or incision will also be fast and there will be less time for channel
widening at higher elevations of the reservoir. Mass wasting of reservoir sediment
terraces can occur during rapid rates of reservoir drawdown due to slope
instability.
In general, the rates of reservoir sediment erosion are expected to decay

exponentially over time because the most easily eroded sediment will have
already been eroded and higher magnitude, lower frequency stream flows will be
needed for additional erosion.
Erosion rates will be relatively fast through coarse reservoir sediments that are
devoid of woody vegetation because there is typically little or no cohesion.
Conversely, erosion rates can be relatively slow through fine, consolidated
cohesive reservoir sediments unless rapid reservoir drawdown creates extensive
mass wasting (Figure 25d). Cohesive sediments likely will erode locally along the
outside of channel bends. If fine cohesive sediments are unconsolidated (low bulk
density), then they can have very low resistance to erosion and be more erodible
than coarse sediments. Rates of erosion and downstream transport may be
considerably slower in ephemeral streams where erosion is limited to the
occurrence of episodic rainfall runoff. If the reservoir is drawn down in phases,
multiple increments of the incision and widening may occur.
Coarse sediment eroding from the upstream portion of the reservoir will prograde
downstream and some will likely deposit along the lower portion of the reservoir
if that space has not already filled with sediment. The rates of downstream
sediment transport and deposition depend on rates of upstream erosion and the
downstream transport capacity. Channel degradation and widening are most likely
to occur where sediment transport capacity, or stream power, are high. Channel
widening may also occur due to erosion of the terraced banks (Figure 25f).
Sediment bar deposition is expected along channel margins when sediment
transport capacity, or stream power, are low. Deposition results in a narrower
active channel (Figure 25f). Eventually, vegetation may grow on the exposed
reservoir topography and remaining reservoir sediment terraces. Woody species
may provide some stability to these terraces depending on density and root depth
relative to terrace height (Figure 25g). The final channel planform through the
former reservoir will depend on the upstream inputs of water, wood, and
sediment, reservoir valley slope, and any geologic or human-built constraints. The
107
channel morphology may include braided and meandering channels as the river
adjusts to the lower base level (Randle et al., 2015).
Similar erosion processes are expected to occur in tributary channels that enter the
reservoir. Reservoir sediments eroded from tributary channels will tend to form
alluvial fans at the confluence with the main channel and locally influence the
main channel’s lateral position. While the erosion processes are similar, the rate at
which tributaries incise and widen may be slower than the rate of erosion in the
main channel. When tributary erosion lags behind, the tributary may occupy a
steeper, shorter path to connect with the main channel than predam conditions,
and become temporarily perched on a higher terrace.
The reservoir landscape that develops after dam removal will depend on the
thickness, size gradation, and cohesive properties of sediment. Narrow reservoirs
(less than three times the active channel width) and reservoirs with predominantly
non-cohesive or coarse sediment are expected to erode the greatest proportion of
sediment as a result of dam removal (MacBroom and Shiff, 2013). A significant
volume of sediment may be left behind in reservoirs that are much wider than the
river channel, especially when the sediments have cohesive properties or are
deposited on terraces within the former reservoir. Cohesive properties of the
sediment may exist when at least 20% is composed of clay, when woody material
or litterfall (plant material, such as leaves from trees) is abundant in the
sediments, or a combination of both. The greater the amount of sediment
cohesion, the slower the rate of lateral reservoir sediment erosion and the greater
the sediment volume that will be left behind within the former reservoir. If the
cohesive sediments have a very low bulk density (high water content) and have
not consolidated, then they will have low shear resistance and can be easily
eroded.
The presence of woody material and litterfall in reservoir sediment deposits can
affect the rate and extent of reservoir sediment erosion while providing an
increased supply of wood and litterfall to the downstream channel. During
reservoir drawdown, exposed log jams or large pieces of wood can deflect the
flow and alter lateral erosion processes. In many cases, old timber crib dams,
beaver dams, or debris may exist that could limit the extent of headcut migration
or lateral erosion and may need to be removed if the predam channel is to be
restored. For example, a large timber crib dam was found just upstream of Gold
Ray Dam on the Rogue River in Oregon and had to be removed in conjunction
with removal of the main dam. The supply of wood to the downstream channel
may increase as a result of dam removal. Large wood released may help restore
fluvial processes and form log jams, provide surfaces for vegetation to grow on,
and improve aquatic habitat. Small woody material, and any accompanying
litterfall, may also pose challenges to operate and maintain fish screens at water
diversions and treatment facilities.
108
Downstream sediment transport and deposition

The risk of downstream sediment impacts depends on the amount and rate of
reservoir sediment erosion, the transport capacity and geomorphic sensitivity of
the downstream channel, and hydrology.
The hydraulic capacity to transport fine sediment (silt and clay), or wash load, is
typically very large so the majority of the fine sediment is expected to keep
moving downstream until deposited in a downstream reservoir, lake, estuary, or
coastal area. Some fine sediment may deposit in low velocity areas of floodplains,
channel eddies, and in the interstitial spaces of coarse sediment along the channel
bottom. Measurable fine sediment deposition in the channel may occur if
significant amounts of stream flow are lost to the ground water. Fine sediment
may be eroded away during future floods following dam removal, but fine
sediment deposition can temporarily affect aquatic invertebrates, slow-moving
organisms such as mussels, the permeability of coarse sediments, ground water
flow, and wells. Tributaries contributing additional flow downstream of the dam
may help dilute effects of wash load released during dam removal.
Coarse sediment eroded from a reservoir may be transported downstream as bed

load or suspended load, depending on the local stream velocity, shear stress, and
turbulence. The primary controls on hydraulics are the channel slope, discharge,
bed roughness, and confinement. Downstream transport rates for coarse sediment
will be limited by the hydraulic capacity of stream flows and at least some
deposition can be expected in low-velocity areas of the stream channel. For coarse
sediment loads, the stream channel may adjust over time to increase its sediment
transport capacity by achieving a straighter and steeper slope with less roughness.
Immediately downstream of the dam excess storage capacity for coarse sediment
is often available due to local scour resulting from trapping in the upstream
reservoir.
Coarse sediments tend to travel downstream in long, low amplitude waves with
the greatest deposition occurring just downstream of the dam removal site. At
Savage Rapids Dam, coarse sediment buried the first riffle and filled the first few
deep pools downstream (Bountry et al. 2013). Reservoir sediment released from a
dam on the North Fork Poudre River, Colorado, deposited primarily in pools
along a 12 km (7.5 mi) reach. During the subsequent spring snowmelt, sediment
was progressively scoured from the upstream and then the downstream pools
(Wohl and Cenderelli, 2000). At Marmot Dam, sediment deposited in a wedge
just downstream of the dam site and restored the predam grade (Major et al.
2012). In high transport capacity environments, like the bedrock canyon
downstream of Condit Dam, sediment may rapidly transport through the reach
with little deposition until reaching a lower gradient section of river (Wilcox et al.
2014).
Kibler et al. (2011) provides a conceptual model of channel evolution for the
downstream river response to a release of coarse sediment from a dam removal.
Initially following the release of coarse reservoir sediment, sediment deposition
109
tends to fill in the pre-removal channel thalweg and results in low complexity
morphology and habitat. During this phase, the channel substrate is dominated by
coarse grain sizes from the reservoir. As reworking occurs, the river sorts the
released sediment forming a more heterogeneous channel with a defined thalweg,
bars, pools, and riffles. For reservoirs with large coarse sediment releases,
significant bar development can result in channel widening, channel braiding, and
floodplain deposition (Major et al. 2017). For the Elwha River Restoration
Project, coarse sediment waves released from Lake Mills and Glines Canyon Dam
moved downstream and dispersed (Magirl, 2015). These sediment waves
increased downstream channel braiding, sinuosity, and bank erosion (East et al.
2015).
List of questions for the conceptual model development

Questions that the conceptual model should try to address are listed below along
with some example answers. Actual answers should be customized for each
project based on local site characteristics gathered in prior steps.
• Has the reservoir operations had a significant effect on hydrology (stream
flows) that needs to be incorporated in the sediment analysis?
o Reservoir operations have no significant effect on hydrology
o Reservoir operations do have a significant effect on hydrology
o Note: If the active reservoir pool volume is small compared with the
mean average annual stream flow volume (< 1%), then dam removal
would not be expected to have much effect on the downstream
hydrology. If the reservoir stores water during high flows and releases
stored water during low flows, then the effects on downstream
hydrology should be considered. As of 2016, very few, if any, dams
have been removed where the primary purpose was water supply or
flood control, so the effects of dam removal on hydrology have been
small. In some cold region cases, dam removal could increase the
severity and frequency of ice dams (see White and Moore, 2002).
• Will the dam be removed during a period of low, average, or high stream
flows and are these flows capable of mobilizing available reservoir
sediment?
o Dam removal during low flow with low sediment transport rates
o Dam removal during average flow with moderate sediment transport
rates
o Dam removal during high flow with high sediment transport rates
o Note: Non-cohesive or coarse reservoir sediment may be mobilized
during the average annual flow and larger flows. Whereas, multiple
floods may be needed to erode cohesive and consolidated reservoir
sediment.
110
• How much sediment will be eroded from the reservoir and over what time
frame?
o erosion of 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, or 100% of the total volume
o erosion period of days, weeks, months, or years
• What proportion of eroded reservoir sediments are expected to be
transported along the stream bed (bed load or bed-material load) versus
suspended in the water column (suspended load or wash load)?
o Bed load transport may account for 10% to 30% of the total sediment
load while 70% to 90% may be transported as suspended load
• What will the reservoir landscape eventually look like?
o predam topography without reservoir sediment
o sediment terraces along the margins of the reservoir valley
• What species of vegetation will grow on the exposed reservoir landscape
and how long will that take?
o native vegetation on the exposed landscape
o invasive vegetation on the exposed landscape
• What will happen to coarse sediment that is eroded from the reservoir?
o transport downstream to a reservoir, lake, or estuary
o deposition along the channel banks in eddies or as bars
o deposition along the channel bottom, especially in river pools
o deposition of finer sediments on top of a coarser streambed with
possible effects to the aquatic environment, ground water flow, and
well yields
o deposition at water diversion and pumping plant intakes resulting in
the reduced water diversions and increased diversion of sediment
o floodplain deposition during flows greater than the active channel
capacity
o aggradation of riffles or other hydraulic controls resulting in more
frequent inundation of the floodplain
o significant deposition that results in streambank erosion, channel
widening, and effects on property and infrastructure
o Note: Estimate how long coarse sediment deposits along the
downstream channel are expected to persist. If the reservoir had been
trapping coarse sediment for decades, then some of the depositional
bars after dam removal may persist over the long term because the
upstream sediment supply has been restored.
111
• What will happen to fine sediment eroded from the reservoir?

o increase in turbidity and suspended sediment concentration during the
period of reservoir drawdown, and channel incision and widening
within the exposed reservoir
o downstream deposition of fine sediment along floodplains, in
reservoirs and in estuaries
o the increase in turbidity may affect aquatic species, which may help
native species that evolved under high sediment conditions
o the increase in turbidity may affect downstream water users because of
increased diversion of sediment, which may require additional water
treatment and sediment removal
• What will happen to woody and other organic material eroded from the
reservoir?
o woody material will deposit along the downstream channel in slow
velocity areas and add to other wood jams already in the channel;
o woody and organic material will accumulate on trash racks and
screens of downstream water intakes
• What effect will upstream sediment and wood loads have on the
downstream channel after dam removal?
o the reservoir had already filled to its sediment storage capacity so the
upstream sediment and wood loads were already being transported
downstream, however, these loads will increase as the reservoir
sediment erodes with dam removal
o upstream sediment and wood loads are still being trapped in the
reservoir, so downstream sediment and wood loads will increase
because of dam removal and restoration of the loads upstream from
the reservoir
• How will the supply of water and sediment from downstream tributaries
affect the transport of sediment?
o downstream tributaries will supply relatively little water or sediment;
o downstream tributaries will supply large volumes of water, some
sediment, and significantly increase the sediment transport capacity
o downstream tributaries will supply some water and significant
sediment loads that will add to the loads from the upstream reservoir
sediment
112
Empirical reservoir sediment erosion estimates

Not all of the sediment may be eroded from a reservoir following dam removal,
especially within the first year and especially for wide reservoirs. Sawaske and
Freyberg (2012) evaluated 12 predominantly low-head dam removals (6 to 45 feet
high) and found that the sediment volume eroded from the reservoir during the
first year ranged from 8 to 65 percent with an average of 28 percent. They also
found that the erosion volume was less where the sediment deposits were
predominantly fine and consolidated or cohesive. Major et al. (2017) evaluated 16
dam removal cases, including some of those assessed by Sawaske and Freyberg
(2012) along with some more recent large dam removals. For reservoirs with
coarse sediment, Major et al. (2017) found that the sediment volume eroded from
the reservoir ranged from 1 to 77 percent, with an average of 43 percent, within
the first year of dam removal (Table 8). For reservoirs with more than 30 percent
fine sediment, Major et al. (2017) found that the sediment volume eroded from
the reservoir ranged from 8 to 72 percent, with an average of 25 percent, within
the first year. The percentage of total reservoir sediment erosion continued to
increase over a period of 2 to 4 years after dam removal, but the rates of erosion
generally decreased with time.
113
Table 8.—Portion of sediment volume eroded from the reservoir after dam removal for
case studies reported by Major et al. (2017).
Short Term Long Term
(< 1 year) (> 1 year)
Time Time
after Sediment after Sediment
dam Erosion dam Erosion
Sediment removal Volume removal Volume
Dam and State Type (years) (%) (years) (%)
Condit, WA > 30% Fine 0.7 72
Glines Canyon, WA > 30% Fine 1 37 5 72
Elwha, WA > 30% Fine 1 20 5 50
Rockdale, WI > 30% Fine 0.8 17
Ivex, OH > 30% Fine 0.2 13
La Valle,WI > 30% Fine 1 8
Brewster, IL > 30% Fine 1 8 3.7 13
Milltown, MT Coarse 0.4 77
Simkins, MD Coarse 1 73 3.6 94
Merrimack Village, NH Coarse 1 63 1.5 79
Marmot, OR Coarse 1 53 1.8 58
Savage Rapids, OR Coarse 0.4 50
Lost Man, CA Coarse 0.6 30
Brownville, OR Coarse 1 30 1.9 38
Secor, OH Coarse 0.4 10
Stronach, MI Coarse 1 1 2.8 3
The portion of sediment that erodes from a reservoir is generally believed to be

less for wide reservoirs than for narrow reservoirs (Wildman and MacBroom,
2010 and Randle et al. 2015). Sawaske and Freyberg (2012) found this to be true
when the ratio of the average width of the reservoir sedimentation to channel
width was greater than 2.5. This is because the eroding channel, and developing
floodplain, may not need to be as wide as the reservoir valley width and some
reservoir sediment terraces may be perched on natural terraces that the river is not
as likely to erode. However, erosion widths can be quite wide through coarse
reservoir sediments that lack the cohesion provided by clay or the roots of woody
vegetation (Randle et al. 2015). This was the case for erosion of the upper layer of
the delta in Lake Mills behind Glines Canyon Dam (Figure 26). During the Condit
Dam removal, rapid and large amounts of reservoir lowering led to mass wasting
and an increased volume of reservoir sediment erosion (Major et al. 2017).
114
Figure 26.—Looking upstream at extensive lateral erosion of Lake Mills delta

(upper coarse layer) near Port Angeles, WA less than 1 year after phased dam
removal began.
The initial alignment of erosion channels through reservoir sediment can affect
the total amount of erosion. This is because the eroding channels have a tendency
to incise along their initial alignment and then widen (Randle et al. 2015). In the
case of multiple channels, the channel conveying the most flow will tend to incise
at the fastest rate and capture flow from the other channels. Erosion rates can be
expected to accelerate as flow is captured from other channels. If the erosion
channel alignment is located along the reservoir margin, there is less room for the
channel to widen and a lower likelihood of planform sinuosity developing.
Channel incision may be limited by bedrock, or a highly erosion resistant surface,
along the valley margin. If the initial channel alignment through the reservoir
does not coincide with the predam channel alignment, the river could end up
cutting into a predam terrace. If it is important that the channel re-occupy the
predam channel, a pilot channel can be utilized to reduce uncertainty of the post-
removal channel alignment. It may not always be necessary that the channel
return to the same channel or it could be difficult to identify the alignment of the
predam channel.
Erosion through the Lake Aldwell delta (behind Elwha Dam) initially occurred
along the valley wall and within a formerly forested area of the predam valley
115
(Figure 27). The large cedar tree stumps in former Lake Aldwell slowed the rate
of incision and lateral migration across the valley toward the predam alignment.
Particularly in wide reservoirs (more than 2 to 3 times the channel width),
excavation of a pilot channel may help ensure that the initial alignment of the
channel eroding through the reservoir sediment coincides with the predam
channel alignment.
Figure 27.—The Elwha River initially incised through the Lake Aldwell delta over a
cleared forested area that did not coincide with the predam channel alignment.
The proportions of sediment eroded from reservoirs vary widely among the
reported case studies. Collins et al. (2017) observed a two-phase erosion response
(vertical and then lateral erosion) even in small reservoirs, and the second phase
can be protracted. Even during the first phase, when flows are of secondary
importance, it commonly takes a few months after reservoir drawdown to achieve
about 50% erosion of the sediment mass.
The data reported by Major et al. (2017) are summarized for the first year of dam
removal in Table 9. For half of these case studies, the sediment-erosion volume
percentages were available for periods ranging from 1.5 to 3.7 years after dam
removal (Table 8). Where possible, the trend lines of the data reported by Major
et al. (2017) were extrapolated to estimate the portion of reservoir sediment that
was expected to erode over the long term (Table 9).
116
Table 9.—Summary of sediment volume eroded from the reservoir over the short term
(< 1 year) and long term (> 1 year) based on data reported by Major et al. (2017).
Reservoir Portion of Reservoir Sediment Volume Erosion

Sediment
Type Short-term Estimate (%) Long-term Estimate (%)
Coarse 1 to 77, Average = 43, Median = 50 4 to 100, Average = 67, Median = 78
> 30% Fine 8 to 72, Average = 25, Median = 17 10 to 90, Average = 46, Median = 39
The data presented in Table 9 may be used to help guide estimates of the sediment
volume that may erode from a reservoir. In general, reservoir sediment will
continue to erode following dam removal until a new equilibrium is reached, but
the rates of erosion during the second phase typically decrease over time. The
average sediment erosion volumes are significantly less for reservoir sediments
that are composed of more than 30 percent silt and clay.
If the relative reservoir width (ratio of reservoir sediment width to river channel
width) is greater than 2.5, then the proportion of sediment eroded from the
reservoir would typically be less than for narrower reservoirs. The relative
reservoir width should be computed using the active channel width of the stream
in a wide alluvial reach that has essentially the same discharge as that flowing
through the reservoir reach.
In cases where reservoir sediment has deposited on hillslopes and old river
terraces that are higher than the predam floodplain surfaces, river erosion may not
be able to access these perched reservoir deposits unless the erosion of these
deposits occurs before the channel has incised down to the predam surface. If
there is a reason to expect that a significant portion of the reservoir sediment
volume will not erode, the relative reservoir sediment volume should be
recomputed and Step 6 should be revisited.
Assessing reservoir sediment stability

If the reservoir sediment erosion processes described in the conceptual model
(Figure 25) have occurred, then the remaining sediment should be relatively
stable. Additional guidance on assessing the stability of sediment remaining in the
reservoir is provided below:
• For most reservoirs, assume that the predam topographic surface, if

exposed, will be relatively stable over the long term. However, an erosion
channel may incise through a predam terrace.
• If the thickness of the reservoir sediment deposit is thin (less than a typical
active channel depth), then the deposit’s topography is likely to be
consistent with the predam valley landscape. After dam removal, thin
layers of sediment remaining on high surfaces above the newly formed
117
channel and floodplain are likely to be relatively stable, particularly if new

vegetation establishes.
• As the thickness of the reservoir sediment deposit increases beyond a

typical active channel depth, its topography will become increasingly
dissimilar than the predam valley landscape and sediment terraces will
become increasingly susceptible to local erosion and instability.
• If an incising river channel encounters erosion resistant material (e.g. old

dam or structure, bedrock, large rocks, clay), then either a large portion of
the reservoir sediment may be left behind or a prolonged period of
reservoir sediment erosion may occur. Under this circumstance, vertical
incision may cease, at least temporarily, and lateral erosion may dominate.
• In many cases, the remaining reservoir sediment can become stabilized by

vegetation. Factors that influence vegetation include sediment texture,
nutrients, slope, sun exposure, protection from wind erosion, proximity to
water, and passive or active seeding and planting.
o If the root depth of vegetation can survive long enough to become
deeper than the sediment thickness then the vegetation is likely to
stabilize the reservoir sediment. However, local erosion from channel
meander bends may still occur.
o If the reservoir sediment thickness is greater than the root depth of
vegetation, then vegetation may only help to control surface erosion
from rainfall runoff, but not limit bank erosion. However, floodplain
vegetation along the toe of a sediment terrace may help limit erosion.
Total stream power calculations

A total stream power analysis will help identify downstream channel reaches
where sediment released from the reservoir is likely to be transported or
deposited. The greater the total stream power, the greater the sediment transport
capacity and the less potential for reservoir sediment deposition. Total stream
power (P) can be computed as the product of discharge (Q), longitudinal channel
slope (S), and the unit weight of water (γ) (Yang, 1996):
𝑃𝑃 = Υ 𝑄𝑄 𝑆𝑆 (9)
The average annual discharge (or a discharge of some consistent flow frequency)
can be assumed for the channel below the dam and all downstream tributaries.
Stream gage records will be the best source of data for mean-annual discharge.
Stream-discharge estimates may have to be extrapolated from other gaged
locations based on drainage area. For most streams, the discharge tends to
increase with distance downstream after tributaries are encountered. However,
stream flow can be taken from the channel at surface water diversions and
118
pumped from wells. Some reaches can also lose or gain stream flow to and from
the ground water.
For most streams, the longitudinal river slope decreases with distance
downstream. However, some rivers encounter steep reaches through bedrock
canyons or reaches near the mouth resulting from local geologic controls. For
example, the Methow and Entiat Rivers in eastern Washington State have steeper
reaches in the downstream-most section of the watershed until reaching the
backwater caused by the Columbia River.
Mass balance calculations

Simple mass balance computations are recommended to relate the reservoir
sediment volume to downstream channel features such as sand or gravel bars or
the average thickness of sediment deposition on the channel bed.
There are several ways to put the reservoir sediment volume into perspective.
Calculate the average thickness of reservoir sediment if the entire volume were to
deposit evenly over a length of the downstream channel that had relatively low
total stream power. For this computation, assume that the sediments deposited
evenly across the average bankfull channel width. If the computed sediment
deposition thickness is less than 10 percent of the average channel depth at
bankfull discharge, then compute the ratio of the reservoir sediment volume to the
volume of a typical sand or gravel bar along the downstream channel (Eq. 1). If
the potential sediment deposition volume is less than that of a few sand or gravel
bars, then the effects on the physical channel likely would be small and no other
calculations or modeling are necessary. However, if the computed deposition
thickness is significant, then more evaluation is necessary.
Separate analyses for coarse and fine sediment will be useful. Repeat the above
calculation for only the coarse sediment. If the computed deposition thickness of
coarse sediment is less than 10 percent of the average bankfull depth, then
compute the average length of deposition assuming a thickness:
• For gravel and cobble-bed streams, assume a deposit thickness equal to
one or two times the coarsest particle size (d90) of the existing downstream
bed material.
• For sand-bed streams, assume the deposit thickness is equal to one or two
times the typical dune height of the existing downstream channel or
assume the deposit thickness is equal to 10 percent of the average channel
depth at the bankfull discharge.
The computed deposit length can then be divided by the average active channel
width to help provide some context. For example, the computed result may
indicate that the coarse reservoir sediment may deposit evenly over a longitudinal
119
distance equivalent to so many channel widths with an average thickness equal to

the largest cobbles of the existing streambed.
For fine reservoir sediment, initially assume that it will erode as quickly as the
reservoir is drawn down and will be transported downstream. Then compute the
average sediment concentration as the ratio of the fine reservoir sediment mass
and the volume of water discharged during the reservoir drawdown period. The
fine sediment mass can be computed by multiplying the fine sediment volume by
the unit weight. The unit weight can be measured from reservoir sediment cores
or estimated (e.g. 0.56 to 1.12 Mg/m3 or 35 to 70 lbs/ft3, Table 3 and Table 4)
based on the portions of clay and silt and years of compaction.
The peak sediment concentration will be greater than the average concentration,
but the computed average concentration will be overestimated using the
assumption that all the fine reservoir sediments erode during the reservoir
drawdown period. If the calculated average sediment concentration would be
expected to cause significant impacts to the aquatic environment or downstream
water users, then the rate that fine sediment will erode from the reservoir should
be evaluated in more detail using numerical modeling, physical modeling, or field
experiments. Highly cohesive sediment may take a few years to erode from a
reservoir, especially during drought periods. The period of erosion may have to be
estimated.
Based on the total stream power calculations and knowledge of downstream

reaches, predict the most likely locations for fine sediment deposition (e.g.
downstream slow velocity reach, reservoir, lake, estuary, or ocean).
Sediment wave model

The sediment wave model is fairly simple to use and provides estimates of coarse
sediment thickness that tend to decrease with time and distance downstream from
the dam. This type of model is limited to main channel deposition and does not
account for more complex processes such as channel migration or floodplain
deposition. Data requirements for this model include the initial reservoir sediment
thickness, sediment porosity, longitudinal slope of the downstream river channel,
and the transport rates of the reservoir sediment and downstream channel bed
material. This model utilizes the average longitudinal river slope rather than
detailed cross sections and it assumes there is a uniform slope downstream of the
dam.
An analytical sediment wave model can be found in Greimann et al. (2006) or in

the ASCE Monograph on Sediment Dynamics upon Dam Removal, Chapter 9:
Movement of Sediment Accumulations (Greimann, 2011). This sediment wave
model was verified with laboratory data and then used to estimate coarse sediment
(sand and gravel) deposition for the removal of Hemlock Dam on Trout Creek in
southwest Washington State. Prior to dam removal, reservoir sediment thickness
120
values ranged from 0.70 to 2.7 m (2.3 to 8.8 ft) with an average thickness of 1.8 m
(5.9 ft) over a longitudinal distance of 290 m (940 ft). Longitudinal profiles of
sediment deposition thickness are plotted for the initial conditions in the reservoir
and along the downstream channel at various times after dam removal ranging
from 0.5 to 32 days (Figure 28). The model predicts that the maximum sediment
deposition would occur immediately downstream from the removed dam (0.64 m
or 2.1 ft after 0.5 day). At 0.5 mile downstream from the dam site, the model
predicts a maximum deposition thickness of 0.2 m (0.5 ft), which occurs after 32
days.
Potential Sediment Release from Hemlock Reservoir

3.0
2.5
time (days)
Sand Deposition Thickness (m)
2.0 0
0.5
1
1.5 2
4
8
1.0 16
32
0.5
0.0
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Distance From Dam (km)
Figure 28.—Example sediment wave model results for the removal of Hemlock
Dam on Trout Creek in southwest Washington State.
Sediment transport capacity calculations

Sediment transport capacity is the hydraulic capacity of a stream channel to
transport sediment (see step 4a). The upstream sediment supply may be greater or
less than the hydraulic transport capacity. The actual sediment load will be the
lesser of the upstream sediment supply or the hydraulic capacity. Deposition can
be expected when the supply is greater than the hydraulic capacity, while erosion
can be expected when the capacity is greater than the supply.
Sediment transport capacity can be computed to estimate the ability of the stream
channel to transport sand and gravel-sized sediment eroded from the reservoir. A
variety of predictive equations may be used to compute sediment transport
capacity at various downstream locations of interest for a range of stream
121
discharges. Sediment transport capacity should be calculated for downstream

reaches of concern that have the lowest transport capacity based on the total
stream power calculations. The required input data for the sediment transport
equations are described in Step 4a, Method 4: sediment-discharge rating curve.
Geomorphic analysis
For moderate and high risk dam removals, a geomorphic analysis is
recommended. The geomorphic analysis should describe the channel’s reference
(pre-modification) condition as far as possible and explain how this has been
progressively modified over the years by human activity. An example of how to
do this is provided in the fluvial audit paper by Sear, Newson and Thorne (1995).
This output provides the basis for a narrative explanation of the channel system’s
sensitivity and thus how it may respond to the proposed dam removal. Initially,
the geomorphic analysis should utilize historical aerial photographs, geologic
maps, soil maps, topographic maps, historical ground photographs and accounts,
and field reconnaissance. Additional analysis may require collection and
interpretation of sediment and soil samples. The geomorphic analysis will
describe the physical setting of the dam, reservoir, and river channel, a description
of geologic controls, significant water and sediment sources, and characterization
of the river and reservoir sediment. The geomorphic analysis also will identify
historical channel trends and allow for estimates of future channel evolution
following dam removal. Where possible, a quantitative geomorphic analysis
should be applied. This could include the analysis of sediment transport rates for
mixed grain sizes and a sediment budget as a first step in the analysis.
Example components of the geomorphic analysis for the downstream channel and
floodplain include:
• Estimate the proportions of the existing bed-material particle sizes along
the downstream channel (e.g. percentages of cobble, gravel, sand, silt, and
clay).
• Identify significant downstream tributaries and their relative contribution
of water and sediment (incorporate total stream power computations).
• Characterize distinct reaches of the downstream channel. The reaches
should be distinguished by longitudinal slope, channel or valley width,
channel planform, geology, land use, etc.
• Describe the potential depositional environments for sediment (e.g. pools,
bars, side channels, floodplains, downstream lake, reservoir, or estuary).
For dam removals with a significant reservoir drawdown and steep reservoir
shoreline, the potential for landslides during reservoir drawdown should be
investigated by an experienced geologist.
122
There are numerous references for geomorphic analysis of stream channels. The
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Sedimentation Engineering Manual
(Garcia, 2008) provides two chapters:
• Fundamentals of Fluvial Geomorphology (Biedenharn et al. 2008)
• Engineering Geomorphology (Schumm and Harvey, 2008)
The ASCE Sediment Dynamics upon Dam Removal also provides a chapter on
the geomorphic effects of dam removal (Skalak et al. 2011).
Laboratory modeling
Laboratory or physical models can provide useful qualitative predictions of
complex processes such as knickpoint erosion, armoring, channel widening,
braiding, meandering (with bank cohesion), downstream transport, and
deposition. There can be sediment scaling issues with laboratory models that can
make quantitative predictions difficult. For example, the specific gravity, particle
fall velocity, cohesion, and the grain sizes of clay, silt, sand, and gravel cannot be
scaled in the same way. Therefore, the exact physical properties of coarse and fine
sediment, including cohesion, are not easily replicated in the laboratory. For
example, the apparent cohesion due to matric suction within the sand can be an
important force in the laboratory, but not in the field. Bromley et al. (2011)
constructed a physical model to simulate the sediment erosion in Lake Mills
behind Glines Canyon Dam in Washington (Figure 29). This physical model was
used to evaluate the proportion of reservoir delta erosion in response to the rate of
dam removal and the initial alignment of the erosion channel.
123
Figure 29.—Gordon Grant (left) inspects the physical model constructed by Chris
Bromley (right) at the Saint Anthony Falls Laboratory, MN of Lake Mills behind
Glines Canyon Dam to investigate reservoir sediment erosion processes.
Field experiments
Field experiments can be quite useful and there are no scaling issues. A field
experiment requires the ability to lower the reservoir pool, or open a sluice gate,
and a monitoring program to test hypotheses or predictions. The reservoir
drawdown or sluice gate opening needs to be enough to create a measurable
response, but not so much that environmental effects create significant problems
for resources of concern. Support from stakeholders and permitting agencies is
also helpful and may be necessary.
A reservoir drawdown experiment was conducted at Lake Mills in April 1994

(Figure 30) to investigate reservoir delta erosion processes on the Elwha River in
advance of dam removal (Childers et al. 2000).
124
Figure 30.—Time lapse photograph of the lower Lake Mills delta during the
reservoir drawdown experiment on April 19, 1994.
Numerical modeling
Numerical models can simulate channel degradation of the exposed reservoir
sediments during dam removal and transport and deposition over time and with
distance downstream. Numerical models do not have scaling issues, they do not
create environmental impacts, and they can simulate a wide range of scenarios.
Numerical models are good at estimating the relative effects of different dam
removal and sediment management alternatives, different hydrologic scenarios,
and sensitivity analysis. However, numerical models have difficulty representing
the rapid headcut associated with dam removal and cannot simulate all the
complex geomorphic processes found in nature. Some of the most difficult
processes to simulate are bank erosion, meander-bend formation, lateral-channel
migration, sediment stratification, bed material mixing, pool-riffle formation, and
erosion processes with log jams and scattered wood.
The domain of a numerical model may include the entire reservoir area, the delta
extending upstream from the reservoir pool, and the channel downstream from the
reservoir. The model should include the entire downstream length of channel
where there are impact concerns. An appropriate downstream model boundary
may include a lake, estuary, major tributary, entrance to a bedrock canyon, or a
grade control structure. The numerical model can be used to simulate and track
both the bed-material load and the wash load.
Accurately estimating the volume of sediment that is expected to erode from a

wide reservoir is difficult because the processes of channel widening and lateral
migration are quite complex. Numerical models can predict the vertical erosion of
a channel through the reservoir sediment, but numerical models are not generally
125
available to predict the lateral channel erosion, which is a problem when the
reservoirs are much wider than the river channel. Most numerical models
maintain their initial channel alignment with no ability to simulate meander bend
formation or lateral channel migration. Bank erosion and channel widening can be
simulated by incorporating empirical methods such as angle of repose, erosion
width versus discharge relationship, etc.
Numerical models to simulate sediment transport, erosion, and deposition are

often one dimensional, which means that hydraulic and sediment transport
variables represent average conditions for each stream cross section and time step.
One-dimensional models are powerful tools because they are able to simulate
many tens of river miles, over decades of time, and for many alternatives and
scenarios including dam removal (Greimann, 2013). One-dimensional models
have a uniform water surface elevation across the channel cross-section, so do not
accurately simulate lateral variation of hydraulics such as in multi-threaded
channels. One-dimensional models cannot simulate eddies and most do not
attempt to predict the velocity distribution across the channel and, therefore,
cannot simulate the distribution of sediment erosion and deposition across the
channel for a given time step. The entire wetted cross section is assumed to have
either erosion or deposition over a given time step. The models adjust each cross
section over time in the vertical direction and some models have the ability to
adjust the cross section width.
There are some two dimensional hydraulic and sediment transport models that
assume depth-averaged conditions for each cell of the model mesh. These models
do simulate variations in hydraulics and sediment transport both along and across
the stream channel and floodplains. Eddies can be simulated as well as erosion in
some parts of the channel and deposition in other parts of the channel or
floodplain. Because two-dimensional models are more computationally intensive
than one-dimensional models they are typically applied to less than 20 km (10
miles) of river and simulate days to months of time rather than years. The number
of alternatives or scenarios simulated may have to be limited, although advance in
computer processing methods or using coarser mesh spacing can allow longer
reaches to be simulated.
Some three-dimensional sediment transport models exist, but mostly for research.
These models are even more computationally intensive than two-dimensional
models and are often applied to less than a mile of river and simulate less than a
week of time. The historical trends of increased computational hydraulics
capability and computer speed mean that the use of two and three dimensional
sediment transport models may be more common in the future.
Many numerical sediment transport models are available. The list of models is too
numerous and evolving too rapidly to present in the dam removal analysis
guidelines for sediment. Given the complexity of numerical sediment transport
models, the choice of the person applying the model may be more important than
126
the choice of the model. The choice of the model depends on the questions to be
answered and the processes to be simulated. The ASCE Sedimentation
Engineering manual (Garcia, 2008) provides some important chapters on
sediment modeling:
• Chapter 14: “Computational Modeling of Sedimentation Processes”
(Thomas and Chang, 2008).
• Chapter 15: “Two- and Three-Dimensional Numerical Simulation of
Mobile-Bed Hydrodynamic and Sedimentation” (Spasojevic and Holly,
2008).
• Chapter 23: “Development and Application of Numerical Models of
Sediment Transport Associated with Dam Removal” (Cui and Wilcox,
2008).
The ASCE monograph: Sediment Dynamics upon Dam Removal (Papanicolaou

and Barkdoll, 2011) also provides chapters specific to modeling sediment:
• Chapter 8: “Modeling and Measuring Bed Adjustments for River
Restoration and Dam Removal: A Step toward Habitat Modeling”
(Granata et al. 2011).
• Chapter 9: “Movement of Sediment Accumulations” (Greimann, 2011).
• Chapter 10: “Guidelines for Numerical Modeling of Dam Removals”
(Randle and Bountry, 2011).
• Chapter 11: “Sedimentation Studies for Dam Removal Using HEC-6T”
(Thomas, 2011).
Some tips are summarized below for numerical sediment modeling of dam
removal:
• For most reservoirs, the predam channel and valley topography are more
resistant to erosion than the overlying reservoir sediments. The presence
of the reservoir pool and sediments over decades of time may compact the
predam alluvial materials. Therefore, specify that the numerical model
may only simulate the erosion of reservoir sediments and not the predam
topography. This can be accomplished by assuming a non-erodible surface
beneath the reservoir sediments. For cases where a new river channel
alignment may form over a predam floodplain or terrace surface, the
channel may incise the predam surface, but the incision would not be
significantly deeper than the predam river channel.
• For one-dimensional model simulations of reservoir sediment erosion,

cross sections must be spaced closely enough to account for the steep
channel slopes created by knickpoint or headcut erosion. If measured
reservoir cross sections are too widely spaced (more than one half of a
typical river channel width apart), then interpolate cross sections between
127
the measured cross sections. If a two-dimensional model is used, the

model mesh size is typically fine enough to simulate the steeper slopes
caused by knickpoint or headcut erosion.
• The rate of reservoir sediment erosion can be simulated using a sediment

transport model that computes how the transport capacity changes over
time in response to changing stream flows and changing sediment
conditions over time. There are many sediment transport equations
available for sand and gravel (Garcia, 2008), but relatively few for fine
sediment. Cui et al. (2017) applied a set of three sediment transport
capacity formulas by Chang (1963) to compute the concentration of fine
sediment erosion for the proposed removal of Matilija Dam near Ventura,
CA.
1.55
⎧ 𝑉𝑉 3 𝑉𝑉 3 ⎫
50 � � , ≤ 10
⎪ 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝜈𝜈𝑠𝑠 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝜈𝜈𝑠𝑠 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 3 3.1 3 ⎪
𝑉𝑉 𝑉𝑉
𝐶𝐶 = 135 �𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 � �� , 10 < ≤ 100 (10)
⎨ 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝜈𝜈𝑠𝑠 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝜈𝜈𝑠𝑠 ⎬
⎪ 0.7 ⎪
⎪ 𝑉𝑉 3 𝑉𝑉 3 ⎪
⎪ 620 � � , 100 < ⎪
⎩ 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝜈𝜈 𝑠𝑠 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝜈𝜈 𝑠𝑠 ⎭
Where C is the suspended sediment concentration in mg/L. V is the
average flow velocity, g is the acceleration due to gravity, H is the
average water depth, and νs is the settling velocity of the median
sediment size. The sediment transport capacity is a function of the
dimensionless ratio V 3/ (g H νs) and the applicable formula
depends on this ratio.
• Sand and gravel eroded from the reservoir may deposit along the
downstream channel, but deposited sediment will not generally mix with
the existing bed. Numerical models will typically assume that depositing
sediment mixes with the underlying streambed. However, simulated
mixing of stream bed sediment with eroded reservoir sediment can result
in a mixed grain size that is too coarse for subsequent transport. For
example, simulated mixing of medium sand (0.5 mm diameter) with
cobbles (130 mm diameter) will result in a mixed grain size that is much
coarser than the deposited sand and that under predicts the true transport
capacity and over predicts downstream sediment deposition. Simulations
should not allow models to mix depositing reservoir sediment with coarser
bed-material. This can be accomplished by specifying the initial bed
material for the downstream channel as a thin layer (0.1 foot or 2 cm) with
the same grain size as the reservoir sediment. Do not specify the grain size
in the model as the predam removal coarse or armored stream bed. The
model may simulate deposition on top of the initially thin sediment layer
(representing the streambed surface), but specify that the model is not
128
allowed to simulate erosion beyond this thin layer. In reality, the

streambed material below the dam may experience some erosion or
mobilization, but for the downstream channel, simulation of sediment
deposition and subsequent transport is of primary importance. Simulating
the erosion of the existing streambed is usually not important.
• If a dam removal can result in a rapid reservoir drawdown and release of a

small flood, then a level-pool routing model should be used to predict the
rate of reservoir drawdown and the resulting discharge hydrograph. The
data requirements for a level-pool routing model include a table of
reservoir surface area versus elevation, the geometric properties of the
dam opening, and the reservoir inflow discharge hydrograph. The
reservoir inflow assumption may be a constant or steady value for dam
removal during low-flow conditions or a flood hydrograph for dam
removal during high-flow conditions. Controlled increments of dam
removal were used to drain Lake Aldwell behind Elwha Dam during
periods of low flow (Figure 31).
Figure 31.—Photograph of Lake Aldwell spilling through an excavated breach in

Elwha Dam near Port Angeles, WA on October 17, 2011.
129
Special considerations
In addition to the analysis and prediction of reservoir sediment erosion and
downstream transport, special considerations may be warranted for climate
change and the case of multiple dam removals in the same watershed.
Climate change
The 2014 National Climate Assessment provides predictions of climate change
effects on hydrology are regionally based and long-term (U.S. Global Change
Research Program, 2014). Most dams that have been removed have been
hydrologically small, run-of- river dams that did not significantly affect (more
than 10% change) downstream hydrology. Although future hydrology may
change with a changing climate, the hydrology will not change as a result of dam
removal for run-of-river projects. For these cases, there is no need to consider
climate change in the dam removal analysis. In addition, for large reservoirs that
are not yet full of sediment, climate change could affect the rate of reservoir
sedimentation (Pinson et al., 2016). If dam removal takes many years to
implement, sediment management and mitigation plans may need to be updated.
Altered hydrology due to climate change could affect flood frequency and the
future sediment yield from the watershed. Sediment typically erodes from a
reservoir within a few years following dam removal and this short term process
would not be influenced by future climate change. Therefore, there is no need to
consider future climate when evaluating the short term effects of dam removal.
However, if the reservoir sediment management plan calls for storing all or part of
the sediment within the reservoir over the long term, then altered hydrology due
to climate change, and altered flood frequency, should be considered when
designing bank stabilization for the remaining reservoir sediments.
Multiple dam removals

The approach to take for analyzing multiple dam removals depends on the
sequencing of dam removal. If the downstream-most dam is removed first, then
the sediment effects can be evaluated independently from those of the upstream
dams. When the next upstream dam is removed, predicted changes to the
downstream channel topography from the first dam removal can be used as the
initial conditions for evaluation of the next upstream dam removal.
If the upstream-most dam is removed first, then the effects should be evaluated
with the downstream dams in place. Sediment released past the upstream dam that
is removed can be expected to deposit in the reservoir pool behind the next dam
downstream if storage capacity still remains. When the next downstream dam
removal is evaluated, any increases in discharge or sediment supply, caused by
the upstream dam removal, will have to be considered as an updated boundary
130
condition for the downstream dam removal. In addition, any predicted

topographic changes to the downstream reservoir or stream channel should be
used as the initial conditions for evaluation of the next downstream dam removal.
If multiple dams are removed concurrently, then a more complex analysis will be
needed to evaluate the superposition of sediment waves eroded from each
reservoir. The released sediment wave from a reservoir can be several kilometers
(miles) long with the greatest intensity in the middle portion (Greimann et al.
2006). The fastest portion of the sediment wave released from an upstream
reservoir may catch up with the slowest portion of the downstream sediment
wave, depending on the distance between the reservoirs. If the downstream
sediment wave slows or stalls due to deposition, then the upstream sediment wave
will add to the deposition. An experienced sediment analysis team is required to
evaluate the effects of multiple dam removals.
131
STEP 8: ASSESS UNCERTAINTY OF

PREDICTIONS
To quantify the impact of dam removal, predictions must be made using a model.
The model can be conceptual, empirical, numerical, or laboratory. All predictions
have a certain level of uncertainty associated with them. Estimates of sediment
transport and deposition need to have enough certainty to estimate where
deposition is most likely to occur and if the deposition will be significant for a
given dam removal scenario. Significant deposition could lead to lateral
migration, stream bank erosion, channel widening, and increased flood stage. The
source of the uncertainty of the prediction can be classified as:
1. Observational uncertainty: This is uncertainty in the data used to make the

prediction of impacts. One example is the reservoir volume, another is
streamflow.
2. Parameter uncertainty: Uncertainty in the parameters used in the model to
make predictions.
3. Model structure uncertainty: uncertainty in the model formulation. This
refers to model limitations.
In this step the guideline user estimates the confidence of each data category to
assess if the data are adequate for decision making or if additional data collection
or analyses are needed. The data categories where uncertainty may be most
significant are discussed in the following sections. After assessing uncertainty
levels, determine if more data collection or analysis are needed to increase the
certainty of predictions.
Observational Uncertainties
Reservoir sediment volume uncertainty

The reservoir sediment volume needs to be known with enough certainty to
determine the relative reservoir sediment size (e.g. small, medium, or large). This
determination is based on the years of sediment load trapped within the reservoir
(Ts) and an estimate of the uncertainty. The uncertainty in the years of sediment
load trapped within the reservoir depends on uncertainty of the reservoir sediment
volume or mass and the uncertainty of the average annual sediment load, which
depends on the method used.
For many small dams, the predam reservoir topography was never measured, so
the sediment volume has to be estimated from sediment thickness measurements
133
Step 8: Assess Uncertainty of Predictions
or assumed predam topography. The uncertainty of the sediment thickness

measurements generally increases with the sediment thickness and must be
estimated. If a legacy channel still exists through the reservoir sediments, then the
sediment is likely not thick and there would be greater confidence in the sediment
volume estimate.
Data from thickness probes should be considered to represent the minimum

sediment thickness. Vibracoring and drilling can penetrate deeper into the
sediment than thickness probes. Attempts should be made to construct the predam
reservoir topography from the present reservoir topography and estimates of
sediment thickness. If the estimated predam reservoir topography seem
reasonable, then the relative reservoir sediment thickness may also be reasonable.
Estimation of the predam, longitudinal profile through the reservoir, based on the
upstream and downstream channel profiles, is useful for comparison with the
constructed predam reservoir topography. If the constructed predam topography
appears to be reasonable and is consistent with the estimated profile through the
reservoir, then there is some confidence with the sediment volume estimate.
For reservoirs where the predam topography was measured, the uncertainty of the
reservoir sediment volume primarily depends on how well the datums are known
for the predam and present surveys and on the detail of the predam survey.
Widely spaced contours of a predam map will lead to more uncertainty than more
tightly spaced contours.
If the sediment volume uncertainty is significant, then it is suggested that a range

of sediment volumes is input in to the numerical model to compute the
uncertainty in the impact prediction associated with the reservoir volume.
Sediment grain size distribution uncertainty

The sediment grain size distribution should be known with enough certainty to
estimate the proportions of fine and coarse reservoir sediment, estimate the
median grain size of the coarse sediment, and the availability of armor size
sediments. In addition, knowing the proportion of clay in the fine sediment will be
needed to help characterize cohesive properties. The uncertainty of the grain size
distribution decreases with the collection of more sediment samples, both across
the surface of the reservoir deposit and at different depths. Collect enough
sediment samples so the estimated uncertainty is low enough to accurately
estimate the proportions of fine and coarse sediment, the median gain size, and
the presence of armor sizes. If uncertainty exists in the sediment gradation, a
range of sediment gradations can be used within a numerical model to compute
the uncertainty associated with the sediment grain size distribution.
134
Contaminant uncertainty
The absence or presence of contaminants needs to be known with enough
certainty to determine if reservoir sediment needs to be removed or stabilized in
place, and to predict their effects if released downstream. The uncertainty related
to the presence of contaminants decreases with the collection of more sediment
samples (spatially throughout the reservoir area and with depth) and with the
number of potential contaminants being tested for from each sample. The
uncertainty related to the effects of contaminants can sometimes be addressed by
incorporating additional studies that analyze potential threats to biological
communities and human health. Regional or local sediment quality guidelines
may provide more information on how to incorporate special studies (Wenning
and Ingersoll, 2002). If contaminants are suspected in the reservoir sediments,
collect enough sediment samples to accurately determine if they are present and,
if so, their concentration.
Stream flow hydrograph uncertainty

The evaluation of the sediment effects associated with dam removal must
consider a range of stream flows to understand sensitivity and reduce uncertainty.
The hydrology of streams with long-term gage records will be much better
understood than streams without gage records. Stream gage records near the dam
will provide more certainty than gages farther away.
The uncertainty related to stream flows increases with flow variability. Streams
with flash floods, including those prone to rain on snow events, will have more
hydrologic uncertainty than streams dominated by ground water or snowmelt.
Stream flow regulated by upstream dams may have more discharge certainty than
unregulated rivers.
Use a range of reasonably possible hydrologic time series when predicting

sediment-related effects to understand the sensitivity of stream flow. Use the
estimated frequency of peak stream flows in each hydrology to characterize and
rank the hydrologic time series.
Parameter Uncertainty
Typically, there are several parameters that need to be defined in a sediment
transport model. The most common are the hydraulic roughness values, the
reference shear stress (or a similar parameter in the sediment transport formula),
and the active layer thickness in the model. It is recommended that the hydraulic
roughness values be first calibrated to observed water surface elevations, then a
range of possible roughness values be used in the computation of sediment
transport impacts. Similarly, the reference shear stress could be calibrated to
135
Step 8: Assess Uncertainty of Predictions
observed bed load transport rates, then a range of possible calibration values
could be used in the simulation of sediment transport.
Model Structure Uncertainties

Each type of model, whether it be conceptual, empirical, numerical, or laboratory
has certain limitations associated with its formulation or structure. The limitations
have been described in the previous sections and these limitations result in
prediction uncertainties. The model structure uncertainty is usually relatively
harder to estimate than the observational or parameter uncertainty. It is,
essentially, the “unknown unknowns” of our prediction. Perhaps the most
straightforward method to estimate the model structure uncertainty in a prediction
is to apply multiple models such as applying numerical modeling, physical
modeling, and field experiments. In addition, multiple numerical models or at
least sediment transport formulas within a numerical model can be applied to
estimate a range of potential results.
136
STEP 9: DETERMINE IF SEDIMENT IMPACTS ARE

TOLERABLE AND MODIFY SEDIMENT
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Once the sediment effects of dam removal have been estimated, the next step is to
determine if these impacts are tolerable. Compile the predicted sediment effects
and associated uncertainty from Steps 7 and 8. Then assess the impacts to
resources of concern such as aquatic organisms and habitat, property, water
quality, infrastructure, and water use. If sediment impacts and uncertainty are
tolerable, then proceed to Step 10 and develop the monitoring and adaptive
management plans. If the uncertainty of impact is considered too high, then
consider additional data collection and analysis that would reduce that uncertainty
or develop management plans that could adapt to uncertain conditions.
Consideration should also be given in this step to how the benefits of dam
removal and released sediment compare against impacts, both in the short-term
and long-term temporal scales.
If predicted sediment impacts are not tolerable, then consider revising the dam
removal and sediment management plans (Step 6) and adding sediment mitigation
options (see below) to reduce impacts to tolerable levels, or leave all or a portion
of the dam in place. After revised dam removal and sediment management
alternatives are formulated, additional sediment analysis (Step 7) and uncertainty
assessment (Step 8) may be needed. The dam removal and sediment management
plans, along with other mitigation actions, should be fully described before
conducting additional analyses (Step 7) and assessing uncertainty (Step 8). The
plans should allow for some flexibility because not all variables like hydrology
can be controlled. For example, the dam removal contractor may encounter
unexpected construction difficulties or reservoir sediment erosion and
downstream transport may behave unexpectedly.
If impacts are too high, there are various options to consider:

• Incremental or phased dam removal to slow erosion and downstream
release of reservoir sediment.
• Changing the timing of dam removal to shift the impacts period to a
different season.
• Reducing the amount of reservoir sediment that is allowed to erode by use
of one or more of the following methods:
o Sediment removal prior to dam removal
o Sediment stabilization within the reservoir prior to dam removal
o Leave a portion of the dam in place
137
Step 9: determine if sediment impacts are tolerable and modify sediment
management plan
It is important to realize that these methods can reduce the amount of sediment
released downstream, but they can have other negative side effects such as
increasing the duration of high suspended sediment concentrations, decreasing the
habitat quality within the reservoir after dam removal, or aesthetic concerns.
Example water quality mitigation

Water quality impacts could be of concern for downstream water users and for the
aquatic environment. New water treatment plants could be constructed to handle
high sediment loads as a result of dam removal and pre-treat water for existing
users. These treatment plants could be temporary. Alternatively, existing
treatment plants could be upgraded to handle additional sediment loads during
dam removal. Other water sources could also be found on a permanent or
temporary basis.
High concentrations of sand, gravel, fine wood (twigs and branches), and organic
matter released from the reservoir could easily clog downstream fish screens at
surface water diversions. Where possible, consider the use of wells and
infiltration galleries to divert or extract water during the high sediment loads
associated with dam removal. The water withdrawal rate of wells and infiltration
galleries can be significantly less than surface diversion, but they will exclude
sand, gravel, and all sizes of wood from the diverted water. High concentrations
of clay and silt released from the reservoir could reduce the hydraulic
conductivity of the river alluvium, depending on the fraction of surface-water
flow that enters the ground water. For some rivers, the fraction of surface water
entering the ground water may be quite small with only a minor reduction in
hydraulic conductivity. However, reductions in hydraulic conductivity could be
large for ephemeral streams.
When there are concerns about the water quality impacts on the aquatic
environment, consider the timing and duration of the impacts related to dam
removal. High sediment concentrations as a result of dam removal are temporary.
The magnitude and duration of impacts can be adjusted by controlling the rate of
dam removal. A faster rate of dam removal can reduce the duration of impacts
and effect fewer generations of species, but increase the magnitude of impacts
while they occur. A slower rate of dam removal can reduce the magnitude of
impact, but increase the duration. If the impacts still would be lethal, then a
shorter duration of impacts may be more desirable.
If there are sensitive species (e.g., threatened or endangered) present downstream

from the dam that are unlikely to tolerate sediment impacts, in terms of survival,
reproduction, or habitat requirements, then adjust the timing of dam removal or
modify the sediment management plan to avoid impacting sensitive life stages. If
possible, considering removing the dam and allowing reservoir sediment erosion
at a time when the species are not susceptible to the impacts. If the dam must be
removed when species are present, consider whether excavation or stabilization of
138
the reservoir sediment is necessary or if the sensitive species in question can be

temporarily relocated to minimize impacts.
Example flooding mitigation

For reservoirs with large volumes of coarse sediment, aggradation of the
downstream channel may occur that could increase flood stage. For these cases,
consider slowing the rate of dam removal to avoid excessive aggradation. Also,
consider constructing new levees and dikes, raising existing levees, and providing
stream bank stabilization to mitigate sediment aggradation effects.
139
STEP 10: DEVELOP A MONITORING AND

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
More than a decade ago, as dam removal became an increasingly appealing option
for dam owners and resource managers, there were numerous calls for increased
monitoring of dam removal projects. These calls for increased monitoring were to
better understand ecological effectiveness, reduce uncertainties about short and
long-term impacts, increase the predictive capabilities of project planners and
designers, and enable adaptive management (Aspen Institute, 2002, Babbitt, 2002,
Doyle et al. 2003b, Hart et al. 2002, H. John Heinz III Center for Science, 2003).
Robust project monitoring was recognized as necessary to improve the practice of
dam removal.
While many still note the relative paucity of quantitative monitoring, especially
for low-head dam removals (Bernhardt et al. 2007, Burroughs et al. 2009, Downs
et al. 2009, Kibler et al. 2011), there has been progress in recent years particularly
with respect to sediment monitoring (Collins et al. 2017; Wilcox et al. 2014;
Warrick et al. 2015; Burroughs et al. 2009; Cheng and Granata, 2007; Doyle et al.
2002 and 2003a; Kibler et al. 2011; Major et al. 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2017; and
Pearson et al. 2011). We have learned that the geomorphic responses of the
upstream and downstream channels vary considerably owing to sediment grain
size distribution, reach gradients, valley morphology, regional physiography,
surficial geology (e.g. glaciated versus non-glaciated), and climate zone. Thus, it
is necessary to monitor several sites to adequately represent the range of fluvial
habitat variability across the nation so that practitioners can have useful analogs
for planning and prediction. Post-removal debriefing or “lessons learned”
documents would be helpful to better inform the dam removal science and
engineering community. Documentation of project objectives, decision processes
and actual decisions, and any data collected or post removal evaluation would be
most helpful.
Monitoring may also be warranted to support adaptive management at any given

site. The fundamental motivations for using adaptive management is to reduce
project risks and improve project results. This occurs by promoting flexible
decision making that can be adjusted as outcomes from previous management
actions and other events become better understood (Williams et al. 2007).
Monitoring data are a necessary component to measure river responses and
whether management actions are working and meeting objectives. If objectives
are not being met, the reasons for this should be explored and existing actions
should be modified or new actions implemented to achieve those objectives. For
the Elwha River Restoration Project near Port Angeles, Washington, monitoring
tasks were designed to be conducted in a “real-time” operational mode for rapid
decision making during the dam-removal process.
141
Step 10: develop a monitoring and adaptive management plan
Monitoring purposes and scopes

The type of sediment monitoring, as well as the spatial and temporal scale over
which it is conducted, will vary depending on the purpose of the monitoring and
the questions guiding it. Monitoring is usually done to support permit compliance,
specific adaptive management actions, verify implementation quality, and/or
understand ecological effectiveness. Permit compliance and ecological
effectiveness are end-members on the spectrums of spatial and temporal
monitoring scales. Permit compliance and implementation monitoring is typically
conducted over small spatial scales and short durations. Ecological effectiveness
monitoring, on the other hand, usually requires larger spatial coverage and
considerably longer durations.
Permit compliance sediment monitoring is usually concerned with documenting

suspended sediment concentrations during dam removal construction activities.
The purpose of the monitoring is to assure that suspended sediment
concentrations remain within a range specified in a permit governing work at the
site, typically a state Section 401 (of the federal Clean Water Act) water quality
certification. Turbidity is frequently the parameter monitored and it is often done
continuously throughout the dam removal construction period at sites that are a
relatively short distance downstream and upstream from the dam removal.
Implementation monitoring simply evaluates whether a project is carried out as

designed and meets basic structural goals. It is also short-term. At dam removal
sites, implementation monitoring is often achieved by the comparison of an as-
built survey done just after completion of dam removal construction to the design
plans.
Ecological effectiveness monitoring, in contrast, is concerned with functional

success and documents the physical, biological, and geochemical response of the
river to the removal. Understanding effectiveness requires monitoring over larger
spatial scales, including control sites or control reaches, and the over durations
considerably longer than compliance and implementation monitoring. For
example, monitoring of a small dam removal on the Patapsco River in Maryland,
included locations 6 river kilometers (4 river miles) downstream and over a two-
year period to observe whether conditions exceed pre-determined erosion or
aggradation thresholds (NOAA, 2010).
Effectiveness monitoring is usually focused on parameters that will document

whether the project was successful at achieving specific objectives, for example,
improved habitat conditions for target fish species. However, some effectiveness
monitoring evaluates a range of parameters to understand broad-scale ecological
response. Effectiveness monitoring also enables impact analyses of specific dam
removal techniques (e.g. sediment release) to be undertaken and better equips
practitioners to improve future dam removal construction methods and prediction
142
tools. Thus, effectiveness monitoring advances the scientific basis for the practice
of dam removal.
In phased dam removal approaches, monitoring can be applied to help adaptively

manage specific implementation actions such as approving the next increments of
dam removal or anticipating the sediment-related effects of subsequent dam
removal increments. Adaptive management works well when the sediment-related
effects of phased dam removal are predicted and near real-time monitoring is
conducted to test those predictions. Near real-time monitoring is needed for
decision making as the project is being implemented. If monitoring results
confirm the predictions or if there are no unanticipated problems, then phased
dam removal and sediment management continues as planned. However, if
monitoring results detect unanticipated problems, then the task is to determine
why these problems are occurring, implement additional measures, and develop
corrective actions before proceeding with the next planned increments of dam
removal and sediment management. Additional measures could mean increased
frequency and spatial coverage of monitoring or additional types of monitoring to
better understand what is happening.
Monitoring design
The monitoring design should be guided by the questions of interest for the site.
These questions should be well defined and agreed upon by all of the interested
parties before the monitoring program is planned. As noted above, the questions
of interest will usually be associated with permit compliance, adaptive
management, implementation quality, and project effectiveness. Simple questions
may only require short-term monitoring of simple parameters at one or a few
locations proximal to the dam. More complex questions may require long-term
monitoring of parameters that require more sophisticated methods employed over
larger spatial scales.
From a practical perspective, monitoring designs are also driven by available

project monitoring budgets which can be constrained. Indeed, the relative lack of
dam removal monitoring, and the difficulty with getting a greater level of
monitoring at a larger number of dam removal sites, is directly related to the
challenge of securing funding for monitoring activities (Bellmore et al. 2017). For
the purposes of this document, the recommended level of monitoring should
correspond to the level of risk. Adaptive management will require some level of
monitoring to implement the project. Monitoring could help reduce costs by
allowing a less conservative and less costly design.
After identifying clear guiding questions, the project team should identify the
extent of the monitoring reach. It is important to establish this early in the
planning process because the spatial scale that must be evaluated may dictate the
parameters and methods that should be employed. For example, is the project
143
Step 10: develop a monitoring and adaptive management plan
team interested in the magnitude of aggradation within a comparatively short

distance downstream or over a much longer reach?
With the exception of narrowly focused permit compliance monitoring and

implementation monitoring, there is usually an interest to understand if changes to
the river system have been brought about by the removal. A simple before and
after monitoring design will accomplish this by sampling the parameters of
interest before the removal and again after the impact (East et al. 2015, Draut et
al. 2011). While the intention of a before and after monitoring design is to
evaluate changes brought about by the impact, sometimes it is impossible to
distinguish between changes caused by the impact and those brought about by
other environmental conditions (Kibler et al. 2010). For that reason investigators
usually prefer a monitoring design that not only compares before and after
monitoring, but also monitoring of a control reach. Monitoring of an upstream
control reach will help distinguish between changes caused by the dam removal
and those that may be caused by external factors (natural or otherwise) (Collins et
al. 2007). Roni et al. (2005) and Kibler et al. (2010) provide reviews of both
monitoring designs and a number of variants that can improve monitoring design
rigor.
Monitoring parameters, methods, and reporting

standards
Project proponents, stakeholders, regulators, and researchers have a wide range of
concerns about how sediment storage and release at dam removal sites will affect
upstream and downstream channels and floodplains—and related effects on
stream and floodplain biota as well as water users and recreationist. Most
sediment concerns are related to a handful of physical processes: reservoir
sediment erosion, downstream sediment transport, channel bed and floodplain
aggradation and degradation, bank erosion, and channel morphology. The spatial
extent and duration of these processes can be investigated through repeat
monitoring activities:
• Reservoir surveys
• Channel cross-section surveys
• Channel longitudinal profile surveys
• Channel and floodplain digital elevation models
• Stage recorders to detect changes in water surface elevation that may
result from bed aggradation or incision
• Time-lapse photography stations including web cameras
• Geomorphic mapping using repeat orthophotography (braiding index,
sinuosity, etc.)
144
• Bed material grain size distribution measurements

• Stratigraphic observations and measurements of sediment deposits
• Suspended sediment and bed load measurements
• Turbidity measurements
Collins et al. (2007) describe traditional survey techniques for accomplishing

channel cross-section and longitudinal profile surveys, repeat photograph stations,
and bed material grain size distribution measurements on wadeable streams at
dam removal sites. Pebble counts (Wolman, 1954) are a widely utilized method
for documenting bed-material particle size in gravel and cobble bed streams
because they are easy to implement, however, they are limited in quantifying the
fraction of fine material in the bed. New methods use photogrammetry to digitally
measure and process bed-material particle size (Warrick et al. 2009). Harrelson et
al. (1994) also provide detailed methods for stream channel surveys.
Methodologies for some of the other parameters listed are reviewed in Kondolf
and Piegay (2003). In addition to traditional survey and sampling methods,
integration of LiDAR and digital camera technology offers opportunities to
expand sampling coverage and provide more detailed data. Structure for motion
was applied on the Elwha River dam removal project to provide frequent (bi-
weekly to monthly) repeat orthophotography and digital elevation models of the
reservoir areas and downstream river reaches (Randle et al. 2015, East et al.
2015). Many continuous water quality monitoring measures, like turbidities
measured with certain probe models, “peg out” and cannot be used effectively in
extremely high sediment concentrations that can occur as a result of dam removal.
The guideline user might want to seek out monitoring devices that are specifically
designed to handle such high concentrations.
For dam removal cases needing to monitor contaminant effects, Cantwell et al.
(2014) and Katz et al. (2016) showed effective use of sediment traps and passive
samplers upstream and downstream of the dam site. These techniques were used
on the Pawtuxet River (Rhode Island) in 2011 to document dissolved organic
contaminants and metal concentrations during dam removal. Cantwell et al.
(2014) noted the passive samplers in particular had high sensitivity, could monitor
contaminant bioavailability, and assess potential changes in contaminant toxicity.
For large releases and phased dam removal, suspended sediment and selected
trace element monitoring at Milltown Dam removal provided temporal data to
quantify impacts from reservoir sediments eroded and transported downstream
versus background loads (Sando and Lambing, 2011).
Sediment loads can be directly measured at discrete points in time before, during,
and after dam removal using traditional methods for suspended sediment
concentration and bed load (Edwards and Glysson, 1999; Nolan, et al. 2005; and
Gray, et al. 2008). Surrogate technologies can also be used to continuously
measure suspended sediment concentrations (Rasmussen, et al. 2009, U.S.
Geological Survey, 2014; and Landers, et al. 2016).
145
EXAMPLE CASE STUDIES

Case studies are summarized in this section to help illustrate examples of low risk,
moderate risk, high risk, contaminants, and multiple dam removals.
Negligible Reservoir Sediment case study: Gold Hill

Dam removal, Oregon
Gold Hill Dam was located on the Rogue River, 195 km (121 mi) upstream from
the mouth and upstream from Gold Hill, Oregon (Reclamation, 2001). The dam
had a hydraulic height of 2.4 m (8 ft) and a crest length of 300 m (1,000 ft)
aligned in the shape of an “L” (Figure 32). The dam diverted water for municipal
use by the City of Gold Hill and was operated as a run-of-the river facility. “The
dam was the second greatest barrier to fish passage in the Rogue River Basin.
Salmon migrating downstream passed into the dam’s diversion canal and were
trapped or injured. Adult salmon were slowed by the dam on their way back to
their spawning grounds.” (Water Watch, 2017a).
Figure 32.—Gold Hill Dam on the Rogue River prior to dam removal in 1999 (left),
during dam removal in 2008 (center), and after dam removal in 2008 (right).
A new municipal water intake was constructed in 2005, which made the dam
obsolete. Gold Hill Dam was the removed during July and August 2008. Both full
and partial dam removal were considered. Hydraulic model simulations indicated
that full dam removal (rather than partial dam removal) would guarantee
successful fish passage and only increase project costs by 4 percent relative to
partial dam removal.
The reservoir impounded behind the dam had little to no trap efficiency. Divers
found only 350 m3 (460 yd3) of fine sediment, which was considered a negligible
volume (Ts = 0.005 yr) relative to average annual sediment load of the Rogue
River estimated at 80,000 m3/yr (100,000 yd3/yr). More sediment was used to
construct the cofferdam (used to dewater the site for dam removal) than the
volume of reservoir sediment. As a check on the negligible ranking, the volume of
a typical gravel bar was estimated using equation 1 (Volume = Bar Width2 x Bar
147
Example Case Studies
Depth). The gravel bar volume was greater than the reservoir sediment volume
and validates the negligible sediment risk ranking:
11,000𝑚𝑚3 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑙𝑙𝑣𝑣𝑚𝑚𝑣𝑣 = (69𝑚𝑚 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ)2 (2.4𝑚𝑚 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑤𝑤𝑣𝑣𝑤𝑤𝑑𝑑ℎ)

> 350𝑚𝑚3 𝑏𝑏𝑣𝑣𝑟𝑟𝑣𝑣𝑏𝑏𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑤𝑤𝑏𝑏 𝑟𝑟𝑣𝑣𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑚𝑚𝑣𝑣𝑙𝑙𝑤𝑤 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑙𝑙𝑣𝑣𝑚𝑚𝑣𝑣
No contaminants were found in the reservoir sediment. The reach downstream of

Gold Hill Dam contained several large pools 10 to 15 m deep (30 to 50 ft) that
had excess storage capacity relative to the reservoir sediment volume. Therefore,
the risk of sediment impacts was negligible because there was so little sediment
relative to the downstream river transport capacity and storage. During dam
removal the river was allowed to erode and transport the 350 m3 of reservoir
sediment downstream and no significant sediment impacts were detected.
Low risk case study: Chiloquin Dam removal,

Oregon
Chiloquin Dam was located on the Sprague River, 1.4 km (0.9 mi) upstream from
the confluence with the Williamson River and upstream from Chiloquin, Oregon.
The dam had a hydraulic height of 3.4 m (11 ft) and a crest length of 45 m (150 ft)
(Figure 33). The dam was constructed in 1914 to divert water for irrigation into
the Modoc Point Irrigation District Main Canal and was operated as a run-of-the
river facility. The dam was believed to block fish passage of 95 percent of the
endangered Lost River and shortnosed suckers from Upper Klamath Lake to
upstream spawning habitat (Juillerat, 2008). Dam removal was expected to
provide endangered fish access to 130 km (80 mi) of habitat. “The two suckers
are a traditional food for Klamath Indians, who annually hold ceremonies to
welcome the spawning run of the fish (Juillerat, 2008).”
Figure 33.—Chiloquin Dam on the Sprague River just prior to dam removal in 2008
A new pumping plant with state-of-the-art fish screens was constructed in 2007,
which made the dam obsolete. Chiloquin Dam was removed during August 2008.
The ratio of reservoir capacity to mean annual inflow was 0.00014, which
corresponds to an expected reservoir sediment trap efficiency near zero. Two
methods were used to produce estimates of the reservoir sediment volume that
represented potential upper limits of stored sediment (Randle and Daraio, 2003):
148
1. The product of average-measured-sediment thickness and planimetric area

for two reservoir areas.
2. The cumulative products of sediment cross-sectional area and longitudinal
channel length between cross sections.
The estimates of reservoir sediment volumes were 28,000 m3 or 44,000 tonnes

(36,000 yd3 or 49,000 tons) and 34,000 m3 or 55,000 tonnes (45,000 yd3 or 61,000
tons). The relative reservoir sediment volume was considered small (Ts = 0.2 to
0.3 yr) using an estimated average annual sediment load of the Sprague River of
200,000 to 300,000 tonnes/yr (200,000 to 300,000 tons/yr). Sediment samples
were collected and tested for possible contaminants, but none were found. The
potential consequences were considered medium and included sediment
deposition on spawning riffles and sediment deposition along Williamson River
near Klamath Lake. The risk of sediment impacts was considered low because of
the small reservoir sediment volume and the medium consequences of sediment
impacts should they occur.
Following the removal of Chiloquin Dam in August 2008, sediment eroded from
the reservoir impoundment without high river flows (Bauer and Collins, 2009).
About 1,600 cut logs were then found sunk along the bottom of the former
reservoir. The eroded sediment temporarily deposited in the deepest pools of the
Sprague River downstream from the dam. Riffle areas were largely unaffected by
sediment deposition. No changes in river bed elevation or bed material size were
detectable downstream from the Williamson River confluence. A year after dam
removal, the sunken logs in the reservoir had not significantly moved.
Moderate risk case study: Savage Rapids Dam

removal, Oregon
Savage Rapids Dam was a 12-m (40-ft) tall concrete structure located on the
Rogue River upstream from Grants Pass, Oregon and 174 km (108 mi) upstream
from the river mouth. The ratio of reservoir capacity to mean annual inflow was
0.0001, which corresponds to an expected reservoir sediment trap efficiency of
near zero. The reservoir sediment was composed of 95% sand and gravel with
negligible contaminants and less than 10% fine sediment. The reservoir sediment
volume was equivalent to two years of the river’s annual sediment load (Bountry
et al. 2013). In this case study, the “probability” of coarse sediment impact is
medium while the probability of fine sediment impact is negligible. A water
intake for irrigation, located just downstream (80m or 270 ft) of the dam, had a
medium consequence if buried with sediment because it could temporarily reduce
the irrigation water supply. The expected coarse sediment “consequence” for the
intake near the dam was medium, and the “risk” results in a moderate rating for
the local intake. Data collection and analysis occurred to improve understanding
of how much sediment might bury the intake and for how long. The intake was
149
operated seasonally between April and October. The answers helped the project
team suggest removal of the dam in the fall to allow a full winter high flow season
to flush reservoir sediment farther downstream.
The first winter flow season following dam removal did flush reservoir sediments
into downstream pools, but enough deposition occurred at the intake that
excavation was required for the first season of operation. In the years following
additional excavation was not required. A second water intake that provided
municipal water was located 3.1 km downstream. The municipal water intake was
experienced increased suspended sands during initial flushing of the reservoir
sediment which was deemed a medium consequence because it would be only a
temporary increase in operational costs over a short duration of hours to days with
little risk of having to stop operations. This resulted in a low risk for the
municipal water intake. Turbidity impacts to fish were expected to be of low
consequence because the increase in suspended sediment would be temporary and
the dam removal was intended to restore fish passage which was a greater benefit
than the short-term impact. Actual turbidity following dam removal was increased
above background for the first few days to the same order of magnitude as a
typical storm and quickly recovered to background levels (Figure 34) (Bountry et
al. 2013; Tullos et al. 2016). As this example illustrates, the assigned risk may
vary depending on the sediment grain size, how far a critical site is from the dam,
how much sediment is released, and how long elevated sediment levels are
expected to last.
Figure 34.—Downstream view of short-term turbidity plume released from

breaching of Savage Rapids Dam in Oregon (left photo) and view of sediment
excavation at water intake just downstream of dam (right photo). Photo taken by
Jennifer Bountry, Bureau of Reclamation.
150
Moderate risk case study: Shuford Dam removal,

North Carolina
Shuford Dam was constructed on the Henry Fork River near Brookford, North
Carolina during the late 1800s to power an adjacent textile mill, but the dam no
longer served a purpose (Singer McCombs, 2016). "The dam removal eliminates
the public safety risk of an unmaintained dam, improves the local community’s
ability to recreate safely on the Henry Fork River, and restores the river back to its
natural free flowing state.” “The ecological goals of the dam removal are to
reconnect fish populations above and below the dam and improve the instream
habitat by letting the river flow freely… Historically, freshwater mussels were
found in the Henry Fork, but have been extirpated for about 100 years because of
the impacts of dams and pollution. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission is interested in restoring freshwater mussels to this stream now that
the dam removal will create suitable habitat once again.”
The reservoir impoundment contained a medium relative sediment volume

(Singer McCombs, 2016). A due diligence sediment analysis was performed,
which indicated some potential sources of contamination from the upstream
watershed. Sediment samples were collected, but laboratory analysis did not find
contaminants of concern. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit required
that some of the reservoir sediment be excavated with heavy machinery while the
remainder of the sediment was allowed to erode and transport downstream like in
a natural storm event. Numerical hydraulic and sediment modeling was necessary
to meet this requirement. Resource management concerns included the stability of
an upstream bridge after the reservoir sediments were eroded and how to
appropriately manage the medium volume of sediment in the former
impoundment. The risk is characterized as moderate based on stakeholder and
regulator concerns.
The 11 m (35-ft) high dam was removed in two phases between July and
November 2016 (Erin Singer McCombs, American Rivers, written
communication, March 7, 2017). The first phase removed about 1 m (3 ft) from
the top of the dam and notched it in the center. The dam was left in this manner
for two months to let reservoir sediment erode and transport downstream. After
two months, the rest of the dam was removed. The project was completed in
November 2016. Limited monitoring is being conducted for fish and physical
geomorphic changes.
High risk case study: Elwha and Glines Canyon

Dam removals, Washington
The Glines Canyon Dam (64 m or 210 ft) and Elwha Dam (32 m or 105 ft) on the
Elwha River were removed during the period 2011 to 2014 to restore fish passage,
honor federal trust responsibilities to the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, and
151
connect the downstream river to the pristine upstream watershed within Olympic
National Park in Washington State (Warrick et al. 2015). Glines Canyon Dam
tops the list in Table 1 for having the largest dam height and reservoir storage
capacity of a dam removal project. Lake Mills behind this dam also had the
largest reservoir sediment volume. The ratio of reservoir capacity to mean annual
inflow was 0.045, which corresponds to an expected reservoir sediment trap
efficiency of 70 percent. The combined reservoir sediment volume of 21 million
m3 (27 million yd3) was large and equal to several decades worth of upstream
sediment supply (Ts = 90 yr) (Randle et al. 2015). This volume was too large for
dredging, so river erosion was the only economically viable option to remove
sediment during phased dam removal. Sediment-related consequences were
considered large and included increased sediment concentrations to the aquatic
environment and downstream water users and increases in flood stage from
riverbed aggradation. Sediment risks were considered high and nearly two
decades of complex planning and mitigation negotiations occurred prior to dam
removal. Sediment risks were mitigated by the construction of water treatment
plants, flood control levees, and a sediment monitoring and adaptive management
program to guide the timing and increments of dam removal.
Concurrent dam removal began in September 2011. The removal of Elwha Dam
was completed within one year (by April 2012) while the removal of the upstream
Glines Canyon Dam was completed in three years (Figure 35,Figure 36, Figure
37, and Figure 38) (August 2014). As of September 2016, 72 percent of the
sediment has been eroded from Lake Mills and 50 percent has eroded from Lake
Aldwell. Sediment concentrations were high during dam removal with peak
concentrations reaching 10,000 mg/l. Nearly every downstream river pool was
temporarily filled with sediment. New gravel bars formed along the channel that
had been absent while the dams were in place, inducing bank erosion and
increased river sinuosity in unconfined alluvial reaches. Flood stage for the 2- to
10-yr floods increased by about 0.6 m (2 ft). Despite the deposition in the
downstream channel, about 90 percent of the sediment eroded from the reservoirs
was transported to the coastal estuary and enlarged the coastal delta 460 m (1,500
ft) into the sea.
Figure 35.—Elwha Dam on the Elwha River prior to just to dam removal in 2011
152
Figure 36.—Lake Aldwell Delta upstream from Elwha Dam prior to just to dam
removal in 2011 (left), during dam removal in 2012 (center), and after dam removal
in 2015 (right).
Figure 37.—Glines Canyon Dam on the Elwha River prior to just to dam removal in
2011 (left), during dam removal in 2012 (center), and after dam removal in 2015
(right).
Figure 38.—Lake Mills delta upstream from Glines Canyon Dam prior to just to dam
removal in 2011 (left), during dam removal in 2012 (center), and after dam removal
in 2015 (right).
Contaminants case study: Lower Dam removal,

Massachusetts
Lower Dam was on Ox Pasture Brook near Rowley, Massachusetts. The dam was
3 m (10 ft) high and located within state conservation land with no nearby
infrastructure, which meant there was limited consequences from sediment
exposure or mobilization (Alex Hackman, Massachusetts Division of Ecological
Restoration, written communication, 2017). The dam was removed to achieve
ecological restoration through fish passage and restored tidal flows at the head-of-
tide on this small coastal stream (Figure 39).
Sediment sampling during 2007 and 2008 included five samples in the
impoundment, two downstream, and one upstream; laboratory analyses included
heavy metals, PCBs, VOCs, PAHs, and pesticides (Alex Hackman, Massachusetts
153
Division of Ecological Restoration, written communication, 2017). By products of

DDT, including DDD and DDE, were detected in the reservoir sediment at
concentrations several times above the marine ecological screening values. The
same legacy pesticides were detected upstream and downstream, but at slightly
lower concentrations. The volume of reservoir sediment was estimated to be
11,000 m3 (15,000 yd3) and primarily consisted of fine sediment and organic
matter (Alex Hackman, Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration, written
communication, 2017). The average annual sediment load was unknown. About
1,000 to 2,000 m3 (1,000 to 2,000 yd3) of this material was predicted to erode. An
in-stream sediment management approach was proposed, permitted, and
implemented because of the presence of the contaminants throughout the
watershed and in the reservoir sediment and the cost and damage to wetlands
from potential dredging. About 2,000 m3 (2,000 yd3) of sediment was excavated
for channel reformation. The remainder of the sediment was stabilized in place as
restored floodplain wetlands.
Dam removal was completed in 2009. This was the first permitted project in
Massachusetts involving in-stream sediment management and pollutant
concentrations above ecological screening values and background levels. The
project involved only a small volume of sediment erosion and downstream
transport, 800 m3 (1,000 yd3) (Alex Hackman, Massachusetts Division of
Ecological Restoration, written communication, 2017). Downstream monitoring
was required as a permit condition. Monitoring results indicated a slight increase
in downstream contaminant concentrations within the channel and marsh surface,
followed by a return to background concentrations within 16 months after dam
removal. Project partners included the Massachusetts Division of Ecological
Restoration, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, NOAA, American
Rivers, Northeast Massachusetts Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management
District, and Stantec Consulting Services.
Figure 39.—Rapid Revegetation the Impoundment Following the Removal of Lower

Dam (Photos by Alex Hackman, MA Division of Ecological Restoration).
154
Multiple dam removal case study: Battle Creek

Hydroelectric Project, California
The Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project is located in California along the North
Fork and South Fork drainages of Battle Creek, which is a tributary to the
Sacramento River. A variety of restoration alternatives were considered on Battle
Creek to improve fish habitat and fish passage, including removal of up to five
dams (Figure 40). The dams being considered for removal were selected because
the profit margins associated with hydroelectric generation were marginal (Jones
and Stokes, 2005). The 2005 planning study provides a good example of
considering multiple dam removals in conjunction with a variety of hydroelectric
reoperations and fish passage improvement strategies to determine how to best
meet project objectives. For this project, reservoir sediment at the dams
considered for removal consists of sand, gravel, cobble, boulders and wood. The
sediment stored at each site is less than an average annual load, but cumulatively
may be 1 to 2 years of average annual coarse sediment load. One reservoir
contained limited sediment and no risk management actions were implemented.
The remaining sites called for pilot channels to be constructed for a short distance
upstream of the dam site to facilitate sediment flushing during high water events
and to ensure that fish passage was adequate (Jones and Stokes, 2005).
155
Figure 40.—Locations of dams removed within Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead
Restoration Project (upper image), view of Coleman Diversion Dam (lower left), and
view of South Diversion Dam (lower right) (Jones and Stokes, 2005). Note that
Inskip Diversion and the hatchery were not removed.
156
CONCLUSIONS
While dams still provide a vital function to society, some need to be removed for
various reasons such as changes to the benefit-cost ratio, dam safety concerns,
sedimentation impacts to operations or water storage, legal and financial liability,
ecosystem restoration (including fish passage improvement), site restoration, and
public safety or recreation use. These dam removal analysis guidelines for
sediment provide engineers and scientists ten steps for determining and
implementing the appropriate level of sediment data collection, analysis, and
mitigation for dam removal projects. The process is tiered based on estimated
level of risk from releasing reservoir sediment downstream. Users are encouraged
to apply the guidelines in an iterative process, first with readily available
information, and again as more data and analysis results become available.
Because the consequences of releasing contaminated reservoir sediment can be

large, each project team must evaluate if contaminants are present using a multi-
step approach. A screening step is recommended to first determine if there is
“reason to believe” contaminants could be stored within the reservoir sediment
and there is greater than 10% fines. If there is no concern and less than 10% fines,
the user can continue with the remaining guideline analysis steps. If a potential
concern of contaminant presence is identified, sampling and chemical and
biological analysis may be accomplished to inform whether reservoir sediment
can be safely released into the downstream river considering both human
consumption and effects on aquatic species of concern. Comparison with local,
state and federal sediment quality criteria and background water quality are
incorporated into the contaminant analysis steps. If the contaminants cannot be
safely released, mitigation must be implemented that often consists of dredging
and disposal of contaminated sediment or capping in place with adequate
protection from future seepage or erosion. If contaminants can be safely released
into the downstream river channel, the guideline user can proceed with
determination of risk of sediment-related impacts.
Risk of sediment-related impacts (low, moderate, and high) is determined from

the product of the probability of sediment impact (small, medium, or large) and
the consequence(s) of those impacts (small, medium, or large) should they occur.
The probability of sediment impact is determined from the relative reservoir
sediment volume (small, medium, or large), which corresponds to the number of
years of average annual sediment load stored in the reservoir, Ts. An accurate
estimate of the reservoir sediment volume and grain size (fine versus coarse
proportions) is key to determining the probability of sediment impact, along with
either measured or estimated average annual sediment load. Projects with a small
probability of sediment impact have 0.1 to 1 year of average annual sediment load
trapped within the reservoir, a medium probability case has 1 to 10 years of
average annual sediment load, and a large probability case has greater than 10
157
Conclusions
years (decades) of average annual sediment load trapped with the reservoir. For
dam removal cases with little or no measured reservoir sediment volume (less
than 10% average annual load stored in reservoir), simplified procedures are
utilized to verify if these cases have negligible risk of sediment release and can
bypass intensive data collection and modeling. The consequences of sediment
impacts, should they occur, are based on qualitative value judgements from the
stakeholders and the project team. Depending on the composition of reservoir
sediment, consequences may be separately considered for release of fine sediment
versus coarse sediment. Benefits of sediment release and improved connectivity
to the upper watershed above the dam(s) are also considered concurrent with
determination of consequences, particularly over the long-term, to help weigh
potential impacts with restoration opportunities.
After determination of risk, a dam removal and sediment management plan is

selected. During the first iteration, rapid dam removal and complete river erosion
of reservoir sediment is recommended to evaluate magnitudes and duration of
sediment impacts. In some cases with large risk or where construction logistics
are already known, alternatives such as phased dam removal may be included
early in the analysis phase. The level of analysis recommended increases with
increasing risk. Conceptual models are recommended to help capture important
and potentially unique sediment processes for each site and communicate with
other team members, decision makers, and stakeholders how these processes
correlate with sediment risk. As risk increases, more quantitative analysis is
recommended to help reduce uncertainty and inform dam removal and sediment
management planning. Before finalizing dam removal and sediment management
plans, the guideline user assesses uncertainty in key steps to determine if the
uncertainty is acceptable for decision making or can be reduced through more
robust data collection or analysis. During dam removal, uncertainty can be
mitigated by the monitoring of expected outcomes and adaptively managing the
project to achieve the desired goals. For cases that require mitigation of sediment
impacts, a range of dam removal and reservoir sediment management options
including adaptive management may be implemented to help reduce impacts to
acceptable or tolerable levels.
158
REFERENCES
Ackers, P. and W.R. White, 1973. “Sediment Transport: New Approach and
Analysis,” Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, vol. 99, no. HY11,
pp. 2041-2060.
American Rivers and Trout Unlimited, 2002. Exploring Dam Removal: A

Decision-Making Guide, written by Margaret Bowman, Steve Higgs,
Elizabeth Maclin, Serena McClain, Matt Sicchio, Amy Souers, Sara
Johnson, and Brian Graber, http://scrcog.org/wp-
content/uploads/hazard_mitigation/background_material/dam_removal/Ex
ploring_Dam_Removal-A_Decision_Making_Guide.pdf
American Rivers, 2015. Removing Small Dams: A Basic Guide for Project
Managers, written by Brian Graber, Amy Singler, Serena McClain, and
Jessie Thomas-Blate.
American Rivers, 2014. Dam removal database.
American Rivers, 2015. Dam removal database.
American Rivers, 2016. 72 Dams Removed to Restore Rivers in 2016.
American Rivers, 2017. Map of U.S. Dams Removed Since 1916.

https://www.americanrivers.org/threats-solutions/restoring-damaged-
rivers/dam-removal-map/, accessed November 5, 2017.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 1997. Guidelines for Retirement of

Dams and Hydroelectric Facilities, New York, 222 p.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2011. Sediment Dynamics upon

Dam Removal. American Society of Civil Engineers, Task Committee on
Sediment Dynamics Post-Dam Removal of the Environmental and Water
Resources Institute, Edited by Athanasios (Thanos) N. Papanicolaou and
Brian D. Barkdoll, 175 p.
Aspen Institute, 2002. Dam Removal: A New Option for a New Century, Aspen
Institute Program on Energy, the Environment, and the Economy,
Queenstown, Maryland, 66 p.
ASTM International, 2005. “Standard practice for environmental site assessments:

Phase I environmental site assessment process (E1527-05).” ASTM
International Annual Book of Standards, West Conshohocken, PA.
159
References
ASTM International, 2008. “Standard practice for environmental site assessments:

Phase I environmental site assessment process for forest land or rural
property (E2247-08).” ASTM International Annual Book of Standards,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM International, 2014. ASTM D4823 - 95(2014), Standard Guide for Core
Sampling Submerged, Unconsolidated Sediments,
https://www.astm.org/Standards/D4823.htm.
Augspurger, T., 2016. “Best practices for sediment assessment: Lessons from five
dam removals in North Carolina, Engineering, Toxicology and Risk
Assessment Guidance for Sediment Evaluation at Dam Removal Sites,”
7th SETAC World Congress/SETAC North America 37th Annual Meeting,
November 10, 2016, Orlando, FL.
Babbit, B., 2002. “What Goes Up May Come Down.” Bio-Science 52:656–658.
Bauer, T.R. and K.L. Collins, 2009. Chiloquin Dam Removal on the Sprague
River, Oregon, SRH-2009-38, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Sedimentation and River
Hydraulics Group, 86-68240, , Denver, Colorado, 22 pp.
Bellmore J.R., K.M. Vittum, J.J. Duda, and S. Greene, 2015. USGS dam removal
science database: U.S. Geological Survey data release,
http://doi.org/10.5066/F7K935KT.
Bellmore J.R., J.J. Duda, L.S. Craig, S.L. Greene, C.E. Torgersen, M.J. Collins,
and K. Vittum, 2017. “Status and trends of dam removal research in the
United States.” WIREs Water 2016. DOI: 10.1002/wat2.1164.
Bernhardt, E.S, E.B. Sudduth, M.A. Palmer, J.D. Allan, J.L. Meyer, G.
Alexander, J. Follastad-Shah, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, R. Lave, J. Rumps,
L. Pagano, 2007. “Restoring rivers one reach at a time: results from a
survey of U.S. river restoration practitioners.” Restoration Ecology 15(3):
482–493.
Biedenharn, D.S., C.C. Watson, and C.R. Thorne, 2008. “Fundamentals of Fluvial
Geomorphology,” In: ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering
Practice No. 110, Sedimentation Engineering, Processes, measurements,
Modeling, and Practice, García, M.H. editor, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA, Chapter 6, pp 355 to 386.
Billington, D.P., D.C. Jackson, and M.V. Melosi, 2005. The History of Large
Federal Dams: Planning, Design, and Construction, U.S. Bureau of
160
Reclamation, US Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. National Park

Service.
Bountry, J.A., Y.G. Lai, and T.J. Randle, 2013. “Sediment Impacts from the
Savage Rapids Dam Removal, Rogue River, Oregon.” In: The Challenges
of Dam Removal and River Restoration, J.V. De Graff and J.E. Evans
(Editors), The Geological Society of America, Reviews in Engineering
Geology 21:93-104, DOI: 10.1130/2013.4121(08).
Bromley, C., T.J. Randle, G. Grant, and C.R. Thorne, 2011. “Physical Modeling
of the Removal of Glines Canyon Dam and Lake Mills from the Elwha
River, Washington.” Sediment Dynamics upon Dam Removal. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Task Committee on Sediment Dynamics Post-
Dam Removal of the Environmental and Water Resources Institute, Edited
by Athanasios (Thanos) N. Papanicolaou and Brian D. Barkdoll, Chapter
7, pp. 97-114.
Brownlie, W.R., 1981. Prediction of flow depth and sediment discharge in open
channels, Report KH-R-43A, W.M. Keck Laboratory of Hydraulics and
Water Resources, Division of Engineering and Applied Science,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Brunner, G.W., 2016a. HEC-RAS River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference

Manual, Version 5.0, US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water
Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), Davis, CA,
http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/downloads.aspx.
Brunner, G.W., 2016b. HEC-RAS River Analysis System Hydraulic User’s

Manual, Version 5.0, US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water
Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), Davis, CA,
http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/downloads.aspx.
Burroughs, B.A., D.B. Hayes, K.D. Klomp, J.H. Hansen, and J. Mistak, 2009.
“Effects of Stronach Dam removal on fluvial geomorphology in the Pine
River, Michigan, United States.” Geomorphology 110:96-107, DOI:
10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.03.019.
Cannatelli, K. M., and J. C. Curran, 2012. “Importance of hydrology on channel

evolution following dam removal: case study and conceptual model.”
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 138:377–390.
Cantwell M.G., M.N. Perron, J.C. Sullivan, D.R. Katz, R.M. Burgess, and J.
King, 2014. “Assessing organic contaminant fluxes from contaminated
sediments following dam removal in an urbanized river,” Environmental
Monitoring Assess (2014) 186: 4841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-
3742-5.
161
References
CDM, September 2011. Screening-Level Evaluation of Contaminants in

Sediments from Three Reservoirs and the Estuary of the Klamath River,
2009-2011, prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior Klamath Dam
Removal Water Quality Sub Team Klamath River Secretarial
Determination.
Chang, S., 1963. “A review of gravitation theory of sediment suspension,”

Journal of Water Conservancy, 3, 11–23. Published in Chinese.
Cheng, F. and T. Granata, 2007. “Sediment transport and channel adjustments

associated with dam removal: field observations.” Water Resources
Research, 43:W03444.
Childers, D., D.L. Kresch, S.A. Gustafson, T.J. Randle, J.T. Melena, and B.
Cluer, 2000. Hydrologic Data Collected During the 1994 Lake Mills
Drawdown Experiment, Elwha River, Washington. USGS Water-
Resources Investigations Report: 99-4215.
Claeson, S.M., and B. Coffin, 2015. “Physical and biological responses to an

alternative removal strategy of a moderate-sized dam in Washington,
USA.” River Research & Applications, DOI: 10.1002/rra.2935.
Cloudman, R., 2014. Idylwilde Dam Removal Complete, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/arp/news-
events/?cid=stelprd3805718, June 24, 2014
Collins, M., K. Lucey, B. Lambert, J. Kachmar, J. Turek, E. Hutchins, T.

Purinton, and D. Neils, 2007. Stream Barrier Removal Monitoring Guide.
Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine,
Environment,www.gulfofmaine.org/streambarrierremoval.
Collins, M. J., N. P. Snyder, G. Boardman, W.S.L. Banks, M. Andrews, M.E.

Baker, M. Conlon, A. Gellis, S. McClain, A. Miller, and P. Wilcock, 2017.
“Channel response to sediment release: insights from a paired analysis of
dam removal.” Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, DOI: 10.1002/esp.4108.
Copeland, R.R, D.N. McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jonas, and J.B.
Frip, 2001. Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects, ERDC/CHL
TR-01-28, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Engineer Research
and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg,
MS, 173 pp.
Conyngham, J., 2009. “Data needs and case study assessment for dam fate
determination and removal projects.” EMRRP Technical Notes Collection.
ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-66. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer
162
Research and Development Center,

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/techtran.html
Conyngham, J., and C. Wallen, 2009. DAM_Explorer: A modeling framework for

assessing the physical response of streams to dam removal, EMRRP-SR-
65, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,
MS, http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/techtran.html.
Cui, Y. and A. Wilcox, 2008. “Development and Application of Numerical

Models of Sediment Transport Associated with Dam Removal,” ASCE
Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 110, Sedimentation
Engineering, Processes, measurements, Modeling, and Practice, García,
M.H. editor, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, Chapter
23, pp 995 to 1020.
Cui, Y., D.B. Booth, J. Monschke, S. Gentzler, J. Roadifer, B. Greimann, and B.

Cluer, 2017. “Analyses of the erosion of fine sediment deposit for a large
dam-removal project: an empirical approach,” International Journal of
River Basin Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp 103-114, DOI:
10.1080/15715124.2016.1247362
De Graff, J.V. and J.E. Evans, 2013. “The Challenges of Dam Removal and River
Restoration,” The Geological Society of America, Reviews in Engineering
Geology, Volume XXI.
Downs, P.W., Y. Cui, J.K. Wooster, S.R. Dusterhoff, D.B. Booth, W.E. Dietrich,
and L.S. Sklar, 2009. “Managing reservoir sediment release in dam
removal projects: An approach informed by physical and numerical
modelling of non-cohesive sediment,” Intl. J. River Basin Management,
7(4), 433–452, doi: 10.1080/15715124.2009.9635401
Doyle, M.W., E. Stanley, and J. Harbor, 2002. “Geomorphic Analogies for

Assessing Probable Channel Response to Dam Removal.” J. American
Water Resources Association, 38:1567-1579. Plus the discussion letter and
rebuttal, in 39:1309-1312 (2003).
Doyle, M.W., E.H. Stanley, and J.M. Harbor, 2003a. “Channel adjustments
following two dam removals in Wisconsin,” Water Resources Research.,
39(1), 1011, doi:10.1029/2002WR001714.
Doyle, M.W., E.H. Stanley, J.M. Harbor, and G.S. Grant, 2003b. “Dam removal
in the United States: Emerging needs for science and policy,” Eos Trans.
AGU, 84(4), 29–36, doi:10.1029/2003EO040001.
Draut, A.E., J.B. Logan, and M.C. Mastin, 2011. “Channel evolution on the
dammed Elwha River, Washington, USA.” Geomorphology 127, 71–87.
163
References
East, A.E., G.R. Pess, J.A. Bountry, C.S. Magirl, A.C. Ritchie, L.B., Logan, T.J.
Randle, M.C. Mastin, J.T. Minear, J.J. Duda, M.C. Liermann, M.L.
McHenry, T.J. Beechie, and P.B. Shafroth, 2015. “Large-scale dam
removal on the Elwha River, Washington, USA: River channel and
floodplain geomorphic change,” Geomorphology, Volume 246, 1 October
2015, Pages 687-708.
Edwards, T.K., and G.D. Glysson, 1999. “Field methods for measurement of
fluvial sediment,” U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources
Investigations, book 3, chap. C2, 89 p.
Edwards, W., December 2015. Status of Dam Removal Projects Worldwide, U.S.
Society of Dams Fall 2015 Dam Decommissioning Workshop, Oakland,
CA.
Elbourne, N., D. Hammond, and J. Mant, November 2013. Weir removal,

lowering and modification: A review of best practice, Report: SC070024,
published by Environment Agency, UK, available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/weir-removal-lowering-and-
modification-a-review-of-best-practice.
Engelund, F. and E. Hansen, 1972. A Monograph on Sediment Transport in

Alluvial Streams, Teknisk Forlag, Copenhagen.
Evans, J. E., 2015. “Contaminated sediment and dam removals: Problem or

opportunity?,” EOS, 96, doi:10.1029/2015EO036385. Published on 8
October 2015.
Evans, E. and A. C. Wilcox, 2014. “Fine sediment infiltration dynamics in a

gravel-bed river following a sediment pulse,” River Res. Appl., 30, 372–
384.
Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project (FISP), 2017. FISP Sampler Catalog,

https://water.usgs.gov/fisp/catalog_index.html, accessed November 5,
2017.
Gaeuman, D., E.D. Andrews, A. Krause, and W. Smith, 2009. “Predicting

fractional bed load transport rates: Application of the Wilcock-Crowe
equations to a regulated gravel bed river,” Water Resources. Research, 45,
W06409, doi:10.1029/2008WR007320.
Garcia, M.H., 2008. Sedimentation Engineering, Processes, Measurements,

Modeling, and Practice, ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering
Practice No. 110, American Society of Civil Engineers, pages 24-29.
164
Gartner, J.D., F.J. Magilligan, and C.E. Renshaw, 2015. “Predicting the type,
location and magnitude of geomorphic responses to dam removal: Role of
hydrologic and geomorphic constraints,” Geomorphology,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.02.023
Gilbert, R.O., 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring.

Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY. 320 pp.
Granata, T., F. Cheng, U. Zika, D. Gillenwater, and C. Tomsic, 2011. “Modeling

and Measuring Bed Adjustments for River Restoration and Dam Removal:
A Step toward Habitat Modeling,” In: Sediment Dynamics upon Dam
Removal. American Society of Civil Engineers, Task Committee on
Sediment Dynamics Post-Dam Removal of the Environmental and Water
Resources Institute, Edited by Athanasios (Thanos) N. Papanicolaou and
Brian D. Barkdoll, Chapter 8, 115-131.
Grant, G.E., and S.L. Lewis, 2015. “The Remains of the Dam: What Have We
Learned from 15 Years of US Dam Removals?” Engineering Geology for
Society and Territory, edited by Lollino, G., Arattano, M., Rinaldi, M.,
Giustolisi, O., Marechal, J.C., and G.E. Grant (Eds.), 2015. XXV, pp. 31-
35
Gray, J.R., G.D. Glysson, and T.E. Edwards, 2008. “Suspended-sediment

samplers and sampling methods,” in Garcia, Marcelo, ed., Sedimentation
engineering—Processes, measurements, modeling, and practice,
American Society of Civil Engineers Manual 110, chap. 5.3, p. 320–339.
Greimann, B., T. Randle, and J. Huang, 2006. “Movement of Finite Amplitude

Sediment Accumulations,” J. Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132,
No. 7, 731-736.
Greimann, B., 2011. “Movement of Sediment Accumulations,” in Sediment

Dynamics upon Dam Removal. American Society of Civil Engineers, Task
Committee on Sediment Dynamics Post-Dam Removal of the
Environmental and Water Resources Institute, Edited by Athanasios
(Thanos) N. Papanicolaou and Brian D. Barkdoll, Chapter 9, 133-140.
Greimann, B., D. Varyu, J. Godaire, K. Russell, Y. Lai, R. Talbot, and D. King,

2012. Hydrology, Hydraulics and Sediment Transport Studies for the
Secretary’s Determination on Klamath River Dam Removal and Basin
Restoration, Technical Report No. SRH-2011-02. Prepared for Mid-
Pacific Region, US Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center,
Denver, CO.
Greimann, B.P., 2013. “Prediction of Sediment Erosion after Dam Removal

Using a One-Dimensional Model” In: The Challenges of Dam Removal
165
References
and River Restoration, J.V. De Graff and J.E. Evans (Editors), The
Geological Society of America, Reviews in Engineering Geology 21:59-
66, DOI: 10.1130/2013.4121(08).
Harrelson, C., C. Rawlins, and J. Potyondy, 1994. Stream Channel Reference

Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245.
Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
ww.stream.fs.fed.us/publications/PDFs/RM245E.PDF
Hart, D.D., T.E. Johnson, K.L. Bushaw-Newton, R.J. Horwitz, D.F. Bednarek,
D.A. Kreeger, and D.J. Velinsky, 2002. “Dam removal: Challenges and
opportunities for ecological research and river restoration,” BioScience,
52(8), 669–681, doi:10.1641/0006-
3568(2002)052[0669:DRCAOF]2.0.CO;2.
Hay, D.H., 2008. Small Dam Removal in Oregon – A guide for Project Managers,
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board.
HR Wallingford, 1990. Sediment transport, the Ackers and White theory revised.
Report SR237, HR Wallingford, England.
Huang, J.V. and J. Bountry, 2009. SRH-Capacity User Manual, Version 1.37.
Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Sedimentation and
River Hydraulics Group, Denver, CO,
https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/computer%20software/models/sr
hcapacity/index.html
H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, 2002.
Dam Removal Science and Decision Making, Washington D.C., 221
pages.
H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, 2003.
Dam Removal Research Status and Prospects. Washington D.C.
ICF Consulting, 2005. A summary of existing research on low-head dam removal

projects, prepared for American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), September 2005.
International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD), 2017. World Register of

Dams, http://www.icold-
cigb.net/GB/publications/world_register_of_dams.asp, accessed
November 5, 2017.
166
Jacobson, R.B. and D.J. Coleman, 1986. “Stratigraphy and Recent Evolution of
Maryland Piedmont Flood Plains,” American Journal of Science, Vol.
286, October, 1986, p. 617-637.
James, L.A., 2013. “Legacy sediment: Definitions and processes of episodically

produced anthropogenic sediment,” Anthropocene, 2 (2013) 16-26.
Jones and Stokes, 2005. Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project
final environmental impact statement/environmental impact report.
Volume I: Report. July. (J&S 03035.03.) Sacramento, CA.
Juillerat, L., 2008. Chiloquin Dam removed, Structure on Sprague River gone 69
days ahead of schedule, Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis, Upholding rural
Americans' rights to grow food, own property, and caretake our wildlife
and natural resources, August 30, 2008,
http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/chiloquindam/removed090108.htm
.
Katz, D.R., M.G. Cantwell, J.C. Sullivan, M.M. Perron, R.M. Burgess, and K.T.
Ho, 2016. Particle bound metal transport following removal of a small
dam in the Pawtuxet River, Rhode Island, USA, Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management, DOI: [10.1002/ieam.1844].
Kibler, K.M., D.D. Tullos, and G.M. Kondolf, 2010. “Learning from dam
removal monitoring: challenges to selecting experimental design and
establishing significance of outcomes,” River Research and Applications,
DOI: 10.1002/rra.1415.
Kibler, K., D. Tullos, and M. Kondolf, 2011. “Evolving expectations of dam

removal outcomes: downstream geomorphic effects following removal of
a small, gravel-filled dam.” Journal of the American Water Resources
Association (JAWRA) 1-16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00523.x
Knox, J.C., 2006. “Floodplain sedimentation in the Upper Mississippi Valley:

Natural versus human accelerated,” Geomorphology, Volume 79, Issues 3-
4, 30 September 2006, Pages 286-310,
doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.06.031
Kondolf, G.M., and H. Piégay, 2003. Tools in fluvial geomorphology. John Wiley
& Sons, Chichester.
Landers, M.N., T.D. Straub, M.S. Wood, and M.M. Domanski, 2016. “Sediment
acoustic index method for computing continuous suspended-sediment
concentrations,” U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 3,
chap. C5, 63 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/tm3C5.
167
References
Laursen, E.M., 1958. "The total sediment load of streams," Journal of Hydraulic
Division, ASCE, Vol. 84(1), 1531-1536.
MacBroom, J. and R. Schiff, 2013. “Sediment Management at Small Dam

Removal Sites,” in DeGraf, J.V. and Evans, J.E. Editors, The Challenges
of Dam Removal and River Restoration, Geological Society of America
Reviews in Engineering Geology, V. XXI, p 67-79.
MacDonald D.D., and C.G. Ingersoll, 2002. A Guidance Manual to Support the
Assessment of Contaminated Sediments in Freshwater Ecosystems.
Volume II: Design and Implementation of Sediment Quality Investigations,
(PDF) EPA-905-B02-001-B, U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program
Office, Chicago, IL. 136 pp.
Madden, E.B., 1993. Modified Laursen Method for Estimating Bed-Material

Sediment Load, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Contract report HL-93-3.
Magilligan, F.J., K.H. Nislow, B.E. Kynard, and A.M. Hackman, 2015.
“Immediate changes in stream channel geomorphology, aquatic habitat,
and fish assemblages following dam removal in a small upland
catchment,” Geomorphology (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.0
Magilligan, F.J., Sneddon, C.S., and C.A. Fox, 2017. “The Social, Historical, and
Institutional Contingencies of Dam Removal,” Environ. Management, 0–
1, doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0835-2.
Magirl, C.S., R.C. Hilldale, C.A. Curran, J.J. Duda, T.D. Straub, M. Domanski,
and J.R. Foreman, 2015. “Large-scale dam removal on the Elwha River,
Washington, USA: Fluvial sediment load,” Geomorphology (2015),
Major, J.J., J.E. O’Connor, G.E. Grant, K.R. Spicer, H.M. Bragg, A. Rhode, D.Q.
Tanner, C.W. Anderson, and J.R. Wallick, 2008. “Initial fluvial response
to removal of Oregon’s Marmot Dam,” Eos Trans. AGU, 89(27), 241–
242, doi:10.1029/2008EO270001.
Major, J.J., J.E. O’Connor, C.J. Podolak, K. Keith, K.R. Spicer, J.R. Wallick,
H.M. Bragg, S. Pittman, P.R. Wilcock, A. Rhode, and G.E. Grant, 2010.
“Evolving fluvial response of the Sandy River, Oregon, following removal
of Marmot Dam,” 2nd Joint Federal Interagency Conference, Las Vegas,
NV.
Major, J.J., J.E. O’Connor, C.J. Podolak, K. Keith, G.E. Grant, K.R. Spicer, S.
Pittman, H.M. Bragg, J.R. Wallick, D.Q. Tanner, A. Rhode, and P.R.
168
Wilcock, 2012. Geomorphic Response of the Sandy River, Oregon to

Removal of Marmot Dam, USGS Professional Paper 1792, 64 pp.
Major, J.J., A.E. East, J.E. O’Connor, G.E. Grant, A.C. Wilcox, C.S. Magirl, M.J.
Collins, and D.D. Tullos, 2017. “Geomorphic Responses to U.S. Dam
Removal—A Two-Decade Perspective.” In: D. Tsutsumi and J. Laronne
(Editors). Gravel-Bed Rivers: Processes and Disasters, Wiley and Sons,
pp. 355-383.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 2007. Dam Removal and

the Wetland Regulations.
Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration (DER) and Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP), 2017 draft. A Guide of Project
Proponents: Developing Sediment Management Plans for Dam Removal
Projects in Massachusetts, Boston, MA, 39 p.
Meade, R.H., T.R. Yuzyk, and T.J. Day, 1990. “Movement and storage of
sediment in rivers of the United States and Canada,” in Wolman, M.G.,
and Riggs, H.C., eds., Surface water hydrology—The geology of North
America, Boulder, Colo., Geological Society of America, p. 255–280.
Merritts, D., M. Rahnis, R. Walter, J. Hartranft, S. Cox, C. Scheid, N. Potter, M.

Jenschke, A. Reed, D. Matuszewski, L. Kratz, L. Manion, A. Shilling, and
K. Datin, 2013. “The rise and fall of Mid-Atlantic streams: Millpond
sedimentation, milldam breaching, channel incision, and stream bank
erosion,” In: The Challenges of Dam Removal and River Restoration, J.V.
De Graff and J.E. Evans (Editors), The Geological Society of America,
Reviews in Engineering Geology 21:93-104, DOI:
10.1130/2013.4121(08).
Meyer-Peter, E., and R. Müller, 1948. “Formulas for Bedload Transport,”

Proceedings, the Second Meeting of the International Association for
Hydraulic Structures Research, Stockholm.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, April 2004. Dam Removal

Guidelines for Owners, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
Moore, D., 2016. “Milltown Dam Removal Case Study, Engineering, Toxicology
and Risk Assessment Guidance for Sediment Evaluation at Dam Removal
Sites,” 7th SETAC World Congress/SETAC North America 37th Annual
Meeting, November 10, 2016, Orlando, FL.
Morris, G.L. and J. Fan., 1997. Reservoir Sedimentation Handbook, Design and
Management of Dams, Reservoirs, and Watersheds for Sustainable Use,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
169
References
National Research Council (NRC), 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal

Government: Managing the Process. National Academies Press. Available
from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/366.html
National Research Council (NRC), 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing

Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Academies Press. Available
from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5138.html
National Research Council (NRCS), 2009. Science and Decisions: Advancing

Risk Assessment. National Academies Press. Available from:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12209/science-and-decisions-advancing-risk-
assessment
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2010. Patapsco

River Restoration Adaptive Management Plan.
Natural Resourcs Conservation Service (NRCS), 2017. Watershed Rehabilitation.

www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/landscape/wr
/, accessed November 5, 2017.
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Revised 2007.

Guidelines to the Regulatory Requirements for Dam Removal Projects in
New Hampshire. Water Division - Dam Bureau River Restoration
Program.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2017. “Dam

Removal and Barrier Mitigation,” In New York State, Final Draft
Guidance for Dam Owners and Project Applicants,
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/damremoval.pdf,
accessed November 5, 2017.
Nolan, K.M., J.R. Gray, and G.D. Glysson, 2005. Introduction to suspended-
sediment sampling: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2005–5077, 1 CD-ROM, available on Web, accessed March 7,
2008, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5077/.
Northwest Regional Sediment Evaluation Team (NRSET), 2016. Sediment

Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest. Prepared by the RSET
Agencies, July 2016, 160 pp plus appendices.
O'Connor, J.E., J.J. Duda, and G.E. Grant, 2015. “1000 dams down and
counting.” Science, April 2015 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa9204
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA), 2001. Sediment Sampling

Guide and Methodologies,
http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/guidance/sedman2001.pdf.
170
Parker, G., 1990. “Surface-Based Bedload Transport Relation for Gravel Rivers,”
Journal of Hydraulics Research, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 501-518.
Pearson, A.J., N.P. Snyder, and M.J. Collins, 2011. “Rates and processes of
channel response to dam removal with a sand-filled impoundment,” Water
Resources Res., 47, W08504, doi:10.1029/2010WR009733.
Pearson AJ and J. Pizzuto, 2015. “Bedload transport over run-of-river dams,

Delaware, USA.” Geomorphology, 248: 382–395.
DOI:10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.07.025.
Pinson, A., B. Baker, P. Boyd, R. Grandpre, K.D. White, and M. Jonas, 2016.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reservoir Sedimentation in the Context of
Climate Change. Civil Works Technical Report, CWTS 2016-05, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers: Washington DC.
Pitlick, J., Y. Cui, and P. Wilcock, 2009. Manual for Computing Bed Load
Transport Using BAGS, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-223,
USDA Forest Service.
Randle, T.J. and J. Daraio, 2003. Sediment and Geomorphic Assessment for the
Potential Removal of Chiloquin Dam, Sprague River, Oregon, U.S.
Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service
Center, Denver, Colorado.
Randle, T. and B. Greimann, September 2004. Sediment Impact Analysis for the
Proposed Hemlock Dam Removal Project. U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado.
Randle, T.J. and B. Greimann, 2006. “Chapter 8, Dam Decommissioning and

Sediment Management” in Erosion and Sedimentation Manual. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO, 34 pp.
Randle, T.J. and B. Greimann, 2006. “Chapter 2, Erosion and Reservoir

Sedimentation” in Erosion and Sedimentation Manual. U.S. Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO, 94 pp.
Randle, T. and J. Bountry, 2011. “Guidelines for Numerical Modeling of Dam

Removals,” Sediment Dynamics upon Dam Removal. American Society of
Civil Engineers, Task Committee on Sediment Dynamics Post-Dam
Removal of the Environmental and Water Resources Institute, Edited by
Athanasios (Thanos) N. Papanicolaou and Brian D. Barkdoll, Chapter 10,
pp. 141-155.
171
References
Randle, T.J., J.A. Bountry, A. Ritchie, and K. Wille, 2015. “Large-scale dam
removal on the Elwha River, Washington, USA: Erosion of reservoir
sediment,” Geomorphology,
Rasmussen, P.P., J.R. Gray, G.D. Glysson, and A.C. Ziegler, 2009. “Guidelines
and procedures for computing time-series suspended-sediment
concentrations and loads from in-stream turbidity-sensor and streamflow
data,” U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 3, chap. C4,
52 p.
Roni, P., M.C. Liermann, C. Jordan, and E.A. Steel, 2005. “Steps for designing a
monitoring and evaluation program for aquatic restoration.” In Monitoring
Stream and Watershed Restoration, Roni P (ed.). American Fisheries
Society: Bethesda.
Sando, S.K., and J.H. Lambing, 2011, Estimated loads of suspended sediment and
selected trace elements trans-ported through the Clark Fork basin,
Montana, in selected periods before and after the breach of Milltown Dam
(water years 1985–2009): U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2011–5030, 64 p.
Sawaske, S.R. and D.L. Freyberg, 2012. “A Comparison of Past Small Dam
Removals in Highly Sediment-Impacted Systems in the U.S.,”
Geomorphology 151:50-58.
Schumm, S.A. and M.D. Harvey, 2008. Engineering Geomorphology, in ASCE

18, pp 859 to 884.
Schwarz, G.E., 2008, A Preliminary SPARROW model of suspended sediment for

the conterminous United States, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
2008–1205, 8 p., available only online at
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1205/ofr2008-1205.pdf.
Simons, D. B., and F. Senturk, 1992. “Sediment transport technology: Water and
sediment dynamics.” Water Resources Publications, ISBN-13: 978-
0918334664, Denver, Colorado.
Singer McCombs, E., 2016. Updated: Partnering to Remove the Shuford Dam,
Our team went to Brookford, NC, to begin the removal of this deadbeat
dam, American rivers, August 12, 2016,
https://www.americanrivers.org/2016/08/shuford-dam-removal/.
172
Skalak, K., J. Pizzuto, J. Egan, and N. Allmendinger, 2011. “The Geomorphic

Effects of Existing Dams and Historic Dam Removals in the U.S. Mid-
Altantic Region,” in Sediment Dynamics upon Dam Removal. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Task Committee on Sediment Dynamics Post-
Dam Removal of the Environmental and Water Resources Institute, Edited
by Athanasios (Thanos) N. Papanicolaou and Brian D. Barkdoll, Chapter
6, pp. 83-96.
Spasojevic, M. and F.M. Holly, 2008. “Two- and Three-Dimensional Numerical

Simulation of Mobile-Bed Hydrodynamic and Sedimentation,” in ASCE
15, pp 683 to 762.
Strand, R.I. and E.L. Pemberton, 1982. Reservoir Sedimentation, Technical

Guideline for Bureau of Reclamation, Sedimentation and River Hydraulics
Section Hydrology Branch Division of Planning Technical Services
Engineering and Research Center, Denver, CO.
Straub, T.D., 2007. Erosion dynamics of a stepwise small dam removal, Brewster
Creek Dam near St. Charles, Illinois. Thesis. Colorado State University.
Stewart, G., 2006. Patterns and processes of sediment transport following

sediment-filled dam removal in gravel bed rivers. PhD dissertation,
Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Subcommittee on Sedimentation, 2013. Welcome to the Reservoir Sedimentation

(RESSED) Database, https://water.usgs.gov/osw/ressed/, accessed
November 6, 2017.
Suter, G.W., 2006. Ecological Risk Assessment, Second Edition. CRC

Press/Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, September 2006, Dam Removal

Guidelines, Dam Safety Program, Document GI-358.
Thomas, W.A. and H. Chang, 2008. “Computational Modeling of Sedimentation

Processes,” ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 110,
Sedimentation Engineering, Processes, measurements, Modeling, and
Practice, García, M.H. editor, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, VA, Chapter 14, pp 649 to 682.
Thomas, W., 2011. “Sedimentation Studies for Dam Removal Using HEC-6T,”
Sediment Dynamics upon Dam Removal. American Society of Civil
Engineers, Task Committee on Sediment Dynamics Post-Dam Removal of
173
References
the Environmental and Water Resources Institute, Edited by Athanasios

(Thanos) N. Papanicolaou and Brian D. Barkdoll, Chapter 11, 157-171.
Tullos, D. D., M. J. Collins, J.R. Bellmore, J.A. Bountry, P.J. Connolly, P.B.
Shafroth, and A.C. Wilcox, 2016. “Synthesis of Common Management
Concerns Associated with Dam Removal.” Journal of the American Water
Resources Association (JAWRA) 1-28. DOI: 10.1111/1752-1688.12450.
University of California at Riverside, 2017. Clearinghouse for Dam Removal

Information (CDRI), https://calisphere.org/collections/26143/
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
04: Guidance on the Discharge of Sediments From or Through a Dam and
the Breaching of Dams, for Purposes of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
(http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/RGLS/rgl05-
05.pdf)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2013. National Inventory of Dams,

http://nid.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=838:1:0::NO::APP_ORGANIZAT
ION_TYPE,P12_ORGANIZATION:8.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2015. Dredged Material Evaluation

and Disposal Procedures, Dredged Material Management Office, Seattle,
Washington.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2016a. Corps Map, National Inventory
of Dams,
http://nid.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=838:1:0::NO::APP_ORGANIZAT
ION_TYPE,P12_ORGANIZATION:15, accessed November 9, 2017.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2016b. Decision Document Nationwide

Permit 53 for the removal of low-head dams, Donald E. Jackson, Major
General, U.S. Army, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and
Emergency Operations, Dated: 21 Dec 2016.
http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/nwp/2017/NWP_53
_2017_final_Dec2016.pdf?ver=2017-01-06-125513-153)
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation

Service, 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and
Practices. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group
(FISRWG) (15 Federal agencies of the US gov't). GPO Item No. 0120-A;
SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0-934213-59-3.
174
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation

Service, 2007. Stream Restoration Design, Part 654, National Engineering
Handbook, NEH 654.
U.S. Department of Energy, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (2017),

Visual Sample Plan, http://vsp.pnnl.gov/, accessed November 9, 2017.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 2001. City

of Gold Hill Fish Passage Improvements at the Municipal Water Supply
Diversion: Phase II, prepared under the direction of the Rogue River
Basin Fish Passage Technical Committee.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 2006.

Erosion and Sedimentation Manual, Technical Service Center,
Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group, Denver, CO.
https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/mands/mands-
pdfs/Erosion%20and%20Sedimentation%20Manual.pdf
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer (Reclamation and USACE), 2015. Part IX – Risk
Assessment/Management Chapter IX-1: Risk Guidelines Version 4.0, July
2015.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 2017.

Risk Management,
https://www.usbr.gov/ssle/damsafety/risk/methodology.html, accessed
November 5, 2017.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS), 2014. Estimating

Suspended Sediment in Rivers Using Acoustic Doppler Meters, Fact Sheet
2014–3038, https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2014/3038/.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS), 2017a. USGS Dam
Removal Information Portal (DRIP), https://www.sciencebase.gov/drip,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS), 2017b. The

StreamStats Program,
https://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/ungaged2.html, accessed
November 9, 2017.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS), 2017c. SPARROW

Surface Water-Quality Modeling, https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/,
175
References
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS), 2017d. National

Streamflow Statistics Program,
https://water.usgs.gov/osw/programs/nss/summary.html, accessed
November 9, 2017.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1992. Framework for

ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001. Risk Assessment Forum,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1998. Guidelines for

ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Risk Assessment Forum,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2001. Methods for

Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and
Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual. EPA 823-B-01-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
09/documents/collectionmanual.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2016. Frequently asked

questions on removal of obsolete dams, Office of Water, EPA-840-F-16-
001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2017a. National Rivers and
Streams Assessment, https://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-
surveys/nrsa, accessed November 5, 2017.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2017b. Facility Registry

Services,
https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/facilreg/home/overview/home.
do, accessed November 5, 2017.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2017c. Envirofacts,

https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/, accessed November 5, 2017.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S.
EPA and USACE), 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for
Ocean Disposal. EPA-503/8-91/001, Washington DC. Available from:
10/documents/green_book.pdf.
EPA and USACE), 1998. Evaluation of dredged material proposed for
discharge in waters of the U.S. - Testing Manual, Inland Testing Manual,
EPA-823-B-98-004, Washington DC.
176
08/documents/inland_testing_manual_0.pdf
EPA and USACE), 2007. Identifying, Planning, and Financing Beneficial
Use Projects Using Dredged Material Beneficial Use Planning Manual.
U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2014. 2014 National Climate Assessment,
1800 G Street, NW, Suite 9100, Washington, D.C. 20006 USA,
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report, accessed November 9, 2017.
U.S. Society on Dams (USSD), 2015. Guidelines for Dam Decommissioning

Projects. USSD Committee on Dam Decommissioning, available at
https://www.ussdams.org/resource-center/publications/white-papers/
Walter, R.C., and D.J. Merritts, 2008. “Natural streams and the legacy of water-
powered mills,” Science, v. 319, p. 299–304.
Warrick, J.A., D.M. Rubin, P. Ruggiero, J.N. Harney, A.E. Draut, D. Buscombe,
2009. “Cobble Cam: grain-size measurements of sand to boulder from
digital photographs and 1930 autocorrelation analyses.” Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms, 34, 1811–1821.
Warrick, J.A., J. Bountry, A.E. East, C.S. Magirl, T.J. Randle, G. Gelfenbaum,
A.C. Ritchie, G.R. Pess, V. Leung, and J.J. Duda, 2015. “Large-scale Dam
Removal on the Elwha River, Washington, USA: Source-to-sink Sediment
Budget and Synthesis.” Journal of Geomorphology, Volume 246, 1
October 2015, Pages 729-750.
WaterWatch, 2017a. Gold Hill Diversion Dam Removal,

http://waterwatch.org/gold-hill-diversion-dam-removal, accessed
November 9, 2017.
WaterWatch, 2017b. Gold Ray Dam Comes Down, http://waterwatch.org/gold-

ray-dam-comes-down, accessed November 9, 2017.
Wenning R.J., and C.G. Ingersoll, 2002. “Summary of the SETAC Pellston
Workshop on Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines and Related Tools for
the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments.” 17-22 August 2002;
Fairmont, Montana, USA. Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola FL, USA.
White, K.D., and J.N. Moore, 2002. “Impacts of Dam Removal on Riverine Ice
Regime.” Journal of Cold Regions Engineering 16(1):3-16.
177
References
Wilcock, P.R. and J.C. Crowe, 2003. “Surface-based transport model for mixed-
size sediment,” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 129(2), pp.120-128.
Wilcox, A.C., J.E. O’Connor, and J.J. Major, 2014. “Rapid Reservoir Erosion,
Hyperconcentrated Flow, and Downstream Deposition Triggered by
Breaching of 38-m-Tall Condit Dam, White Salmon River, Washington.”
Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 119: 1376-1394, DOI:
10.1002/2013JF003073.
Wildman, L.A.S. and J.G. MacBroom, 2005. “The evolution of gravel bed
channels after dam removal: Case study of the Anaconda and Union City
Dam removals.” Geomorphology, 71, 245-262.
Wildman, L.A.S. and J.G. MacBroom, 2010. “A Broad Level Classification

System for Dam Removals.” 2nd Joint Federal Interagency Conference,
Las Vegas, NV, June 27 - July 1, 2010.
Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro, 2007. Adaptive Management: The
U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management
Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Wohl, E., and D. Cenderelli, 2000. “Sediment Deposition and Transport Patterns
Following a Reservoir Sediment Release.” Water Resources Research
36:319-333
Wolman, M.G., 1954. “A method of sampling coarse river-bed material.”

Transactions of the 1977 American Geophysical Union, 35, 951–956.
Wong, M. and G. Parker, 2006. "Reanalysis and Correction of Bed Load Relation
of Meyer-Peter and Muller Using Their Own Database," J. Hydraulic
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132(11). p. 1159-1168.
Wu, W., S.S.Y. Wang, and Y. Jia, 2000. "Nonuniform sediment transport in
alluvial rivers," Journal of Hydraulic Research, Vol. 38(6):427-434.
Yang, C.T., 1973. “Incipient Motion and Sediment Transport,” Journal of the
Hydraulic Division, ASCE, vol. 99, no. HY10, pp. 1679-1704.
Yang, C.T., 1979. “The Movement of Sediment in Rivers,” Geophysical Survey 3,

D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 39-68.
Yang, C.T., 1984. “Unit Stream Power Equation for Gravel,” Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, vol. 110, no. 12, pp. 1783-1797.
178
Yang, C.T., 1996. Sediment Transport Theory and Practice, The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc. New York (reprint by Krieger Publishing Company,
Malabar, Florida, 2003).
179
Appendix A
APPENDIX A
RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION PROCESS

This section focuses on the spatial variation of reservoir sediment deposits and the temporal reservoir
sedimentation history to help inform expectations of river responses following reservoir drawdown and
dam removal. All reservoirs formed by dams on natural rivers are subject to some degree of sediment
inflow and deposition. Reservoirs tend to be very efficient sediment traps because of the very low flow
velocities (Morris and Fan, 1997; Reclamation, 2006). The coarsest sediment particles tend to deposit
first, at the upstream end of the reservoir, while finer particles tend to deposit farther downstream. If the
reservoir retention time is short, the finest particles may pass through the reservoir, especially during
periods of high flows. Sand, gravel, and cobble tend to deposit as a delta at the upstream end of the
reservoir while silt and clay tend to deposit along the reservoir bottom (Figure A-1). In addition, wood of
all sized (twigs to large logs) can accumulate throughout the reservoir sediment deposit. When fine
sediments reach the dam without being released downstream, a muddy lake condition is formed and the
deposits tend to be level (Morris and Fan, 1997).
Figure A-1.—Reservoir sediment profile with delta and lakebed sediment deposits (after Morris
and Fan, 1997).
Reservoirs with deltas or sediment deposits that are near the crest of the dam may aggrade above
the normal operating pool, especially during peak flood events. When sediment aggrades above
the normal operating pool, vegetation establishment and large wood recruitment often occur.
Even when a reservoir is full of sediment, a dominant active channel will be present. Vegetation
can create additional resistance to erosion, and influence the location of the active channel
A-1
Reservoir sedimentation process
passing through the reservoir. On Marble Bluff Dam in Nevada, vegetation formed on the
reservoir sediment deposit creating an island just upstream of the dam (Figure A-2).
Figure A-2.—Vegetation has grown on extensive reservoir sedimentation behind Mable Bluff Dam,
which is located on the Truckee River approximately 3 miles upstream from Pyramid Lake and 50
miles downstream of Reno, Nevada. The inset ground photograph is looking upstream at
vegetated island that has formed on reservoir sediment deposit just upstream from the dam. The
low-flow channel path is to the right of the island in this photograph, and a side channel has
formed on the left side of the island. Aerial photograph is from Google Earth. The ground
photograph was taken by Jennifer Bountry, Reclamation, November 18, 2016.
Conceptually, reservoir sediment deposits can be divided into three main longitudinal zones:
topset deposit, foreset deposit, and bottomset deposit (Julien, 1995; Morris and Fan, 1997;
Bridge, 2003). The topset is the delta deposit created by rapidly settling coarse sediment. The
foreset deposits represents the face of the delta advancing into the reservoir. Foreset deposits are
differentiated from topset deposits by relatively finer grain sediment and a much steeper slope,
usually at the angle of repose for the grain sizes composing the delta. The downstream limit of
bed material transport in the reservoir corresponds to where the topset deposit ends and the
foreset deposit begins. The pivot point at the downstream end of the topset deposit will progress
downstream with continued reservoir sedimentation. Bottomset deposits, often referred to as
lakebed sediment, are the fine sediments deposited beyond the delta by turbidity currents or non-
stratified flow. Lakebed sediment often deposits across the entire inundated landscape beneath
the reservoir surface, including the reservoir hillslopes and coves. The reservoir deposits may
also include organic and woody material of varying sizes.
The longitudinal slope of the delta topset has been found to vary between 20 to 100 % of the
predam channel slope, with an average slope of about 50% of the predam channel slope (Strand
and Pemberton, 1982). The actual delta slope depends on the sediment grain size, reservoir level
A-2
Appendix A
fluctuations, and flow velocity or shear stress. The average of foreset slopes observed in
Reclamation reservoir resurveys is 6.5 times the topset slope; however, some reservoirs exhibit a
foreset slope considerably greater than this; for example, Lake Mead’s foreset slope is 100 times
the topset due to the coarse sediment gradation (Strand and Pemberton, 1982; Reclamation,
2006).
Delta deposits commonly contain both coarse and fine sediments, where the bottomset beds are
composed primarily of fine sediments (Morris and Fan, 1997). However, coarse sediments can
be found within layers of the bottomset beds due to tributary sediment inflows, erosion of the
exposed delta during reservoir drawdown, reservoir slope failures, and extreme floods.
The longitudinal deposition patterns will vary with the reservoir pool geometry, sediment inflow
rate and grain size, and the amount and frequency of reservoir fluctuations. Morris and Fan
(1997) presented four basic types of reservoir sediment deposition patterns (Figure A-3). The
patterns depend on the sediment inflow characteristics and reservoir fluctuations. Multiple
deposition patterns can exist simultaneously in different areas of the same reservoir. Small
reservoirs with low sediment trap efficiency may only have thin deposits of sediment in various
patches with relatively lower transport capacity (such as off-channel areas, pools and eddies)
throughout the reservoir bottom (Gartner et al., 2015).
Figure A-3.—Four basic patterns of reservoir sediment deposition: delta, tapering, wedge, and
uniform (Morris and Fan, 1997).
The four basic longitudinal patterns of reservoir sedimentation presented in Figure A-3 are
described below:
• Delta deposits are at the upstream end of the reservoir and contain the coarsest fraction of
the sediment load (Figure A-4). The delta may consist entirely of coarse sediment when
the retention of water is short. However, the delta may also include a significant fraction
of fine sediment when the retention time is long.
A-3
• Wedge-shaped deposits are thickest at the dam and become thinner in the upstream
direction. Wedge-shaped deposits are caused typically by the transport of fine sediment
to the dam by turbidity currents. Wedge-shaped deposits are also found in small
reservoirs with a large inflow of fine sediment, and in large reservoirs operated at low
water level during flood events, which causes sediment to be transported near the dam.
Coarse sediment can create a wedge-shaped deposit over the entire length of the
reservoir.
• Tapering deposits are progressively thinner in the downstream direction. This is a
common pattern in long reservoirs normally held at a high pool level, and reflects the
progressive deposition of fine sediments in the downstream direction.
• Uniform deposits are unusual, but do occur in narrow reservoirs with frequent water level
fluctuation and a small fine sediment load.
Figure A-4.—Looking upstream at Lake Mills delta on the Elwha River in Washington State during
removal of Glines Canyon Dam. Photograph courtesy of National Park Service taken from time-
lapse camera on February 12, 2012.
A-4
Appendix A
Upstream delta extent

Deltas typically do not form in reservoirs with little or no coarse sediment inflows. Coarse
sediment entering a reservoir typically deposits at the upstream of end of the normal pool and
forms a delta. As a delta builds in thickness over time, deposition will continue on the delta
surface and above the normal reservoir water surface elevation along one or more of the
upstream channels flowing into the reservoir. For the sediments deposited above the normal
reservoir pool, vegetation will likely grow, further encouraging flow into more narrow and
distinct channel paths. As the roughness increases on the delta surface with the accumulation of
wood and vegetation, the backwater depth of the upstream channels will also increase. Through
this process, the delta will expand farther upstream into narrower riverine corridors beyond the
original reservoir pool formed by the dam. While these upstream areas may look like river
corridors, they eventually incise upon dam removal (Randle et al., 2015).
Sedimentation rates
All reservoirs formed by dams on natural water courses trap some sediment over time.
Reservoirs with small sediment storage capacities typically fill with sediment within the first few
years of operation, especially on large rivers. The sediment trap efficiency approaches zero for
fine sediment first and eventually for coarse sediment. Once the sediment storage capacity has
been filled, sediments may continue to deposit upstream of the reservoir pool, but will also be
transported through the reservoir to the downstream channel. The reservoir sediment storage will
be dynamic and vary over time as floods erode and deposit sediment, but the long-term average
sediment load supplied from upstream will be transported through the reservoir. The process
where a reservoir has filled with sediment was documented for Merrimack Village Dam (Pearson
et al., 2011). Pearson and Pizzuto (2015) provide a five-step conceptual model for the evolution
of the longitudinal sediment profile through the reservoir. Eventually, a ramp of sediment forms
near the dam and bed material load is transported over the dam for the first time. Finally, the
reservoir will reach a morphology where bed material load can be transported through the
reservoir without net accumulation over the long term. Some scour of the reservoir sediment
during floods would be likely after periods when the sediment storage is at a maximum while
deposition is likely after periods when sediment storage is at a minimum.
If there is still room for the reservoir to trap sediment, the sedimentation rates vary over time
with hydrology. The volume of reservoir sedimentation can increase substantially during floods.
Inflowing reservoir sediment loads vary with discharge, the type of precipitation (rainfall or
snowmelt), vegetation, wildfire, and land use.
Legacy sediment and legacy dams

Some reservoirs in the eastern and mid-western United States accumulated sediment that eroded
as a result of historical land clearance for agriculture and mining by European settlers during the
early 1600s to mid-1800s, depending on region. Reservoirs upstream of milldams quickly filled,
and then new, larger dams were built that buried or inundated the older dams (James, 2013;
A-5
Walter and Merritts, 2008; Knox, 2006; Jacobson and Coleman, 1986). Sedimentation has also
infilled riparian wetlands and raised floodplains converting them to terraces rarely inundated.
These sediments are sometimes referred to as legacy sediment, and can result in complex
sedimentation patterns when identifying sedimentation behind a more modern dam.
It is common for dams to have been built downstream of an older, smaller dam, submerging it in
the new enlarged pond. This interrupts sediment distribution and flow upon dam removal (Figure
A-5). Legacy dams can add additional challenges to dam removal.
Figure A-5.— Looking across at example of legacy dam. Photography courtesy of Jim MacBroom.
Trap efficiency
The proportion of inflowing sediment deposited in the reservoir relative to the total incoming
sediment load is known as the sediment trap efficiency. The trap efficiency depends primarily
upon the fall velocity of the various sediment particles, flow rate, and velocity through the
reservoir (Strand and Pemberton, 1982). The particle fall velocity is a function of sediment
particle size, shape, and density and the water viscosity. The flocculation or combining of fine
sediment particles can increase the settling velocity. The reservoir sediment trap efficiency tends
to decrease over time as sediment fills the reservoir. However, the trap efficiency also decreases
temporarily during floods as flow velocity increases through the reservoir.
A small reservoir pool behind a diversion dam is expected to reach its sediment storage capacity
for coarse sediment within a few years whereas the trap efficiency for fine sediment may be near
zero soon after completion. A negligible or small reservoir sediment volume is expected for
these small reservoir pools. Larger reservoir pools trap coarse sediment for decades and the trap
A-6
Appendix A
efficiency for fine sediment can be significant. Therefore, simple estimates of reservoir sediment
trap efficiency can be quite useful for initially estimating the relative sediment volume and the
level of field data collection that is needed. The reservoir shape also influences trap efficiency
with wide aspect ratios (reservoir width divided by channel bankfull width) increasing trap
efficiency.
The ratio of the reservoir storage capacity to the average annual streamflow volume – referred to
as the retention time - is a useful index to initially estimate the sediment trap efficiency. The
reservoir sediment trap efficiency increases as the retention time increases. Churchill (1948) and
Brune (1953) developed empirical relationships for reservoir sediment trap efficiency which
were compared with empirical case studies from other locations in Strand and Pemberton (1982)
(Figure A-6).
The Churchill (1948) trap efficiency curve is recommended by Strand and Pemberton (1982) for
settling basins, small reservoirs, flood retarding structures, semi-dry reservoirs, and reservoirs
that are frequently sluiced. Churchill (1948) correlated the percentage of the incoming sediment
load passing through a reservoir with the ratio of the reservoir retention time (s) to the mean
water velocity (m/s or ft/s) (sedimentation index). The sedimentation index can be made
dimensionless by multiplying it by the acceleration due to gravity (m/s2 or ft/s2).
The Brune (1953) trap efficiency curve is recommend by Strand and Pemberton (1982) for
estimating the long-term reservoir trap efficiency for large storage based on the correlation
between the relative reservoir size (ratio of reservoir capacity to average annual inflow) and the
trap efficiency. Using this relationship, reservoirs with the capacity to store 10 percent of the
average annual inflow would be expected to trap between 72 and 98 percent of the inflowing
sediment. Reservoirs with the capacity to store 1 percent of the average annual inflow would be
expected to trap between 45 and 55 percent of the inflowing sediment. When the reservoir
storage capacity is less than 0.1 percent of the average annual inflow, then the fine-sediment trap
efficiency would be near zero.
A-7
Figure A-6.—Empirical reservoir sediment trap efficiency curves based on Churchill (1948) and
Brune (1953) and additional case studies (Strand and Pemberton, 1982).
Reservoirs will normally trap all of the inflowing coarse sediment until the reservoir is nearly
full and reaches its sediment storage capacity (Figure A-7). After sediment has filled the
reservoir, future floods will transport inflowing sediments through the reservoir, deposit some of
these sediments, and erode some of sediment that had previously deposited within the reservoir.
The delta upstream from the reservoir can continue to aggrade even after the reservoir has filled
with sediment. The pool behind a small diversion dam is typically filled with sediment within the
first few floods. In cases where the delta has reached the dam, the delta surface may partially
erode resulting in a net loss in reservoir sediment storage during floods, and then refill during
subsequent low flows.
A-8
Appendix A
Figure A-7.—Reservoir sediment profile after the reservoir has filled with sediment.
Reservoir operation effects on sedimentation

The operation of the reservoir pool will influence the sediment trap efficiency and the spatial
distribution and unit weight of sediments that settle within the reservoir. The reservoir sediment
trap efficiency will be greatest if substantial portions of the inflows are stored during floods
when the sediment concentrations are highest. If the reservoir is normally kept full (run of river
operation), flood flows pass through the reservoir and sediment trap efficiency is reduced. When
reservoirs are frequently drawn down, a portion of the reservoir sediments (typically the delta)
will be eroded and redeposited deeper in the reservoir pool. In some cases, the sediments will be
flushed out of the reservoir. Fine sediments that are exposed above the drawn down reservoir
pool will compact as they dry out (Strand and Pemberton, 1982). For example, fine sediment
would be compacted during droughts that result in reservoir drawdown.
The design life approach for dams was typically used in the United States (and many other parts
of the world). Under the design life approach, the dam and reservoir were designed to trap a
certain volume of sediment over certain period of time. The elevation of the lowest dam outlet is
set to be above the reservoir sediment over the sediment design life. Once the reservoir sediment
has reached the lowest outlet, some undefined action will have to be taken for continued
reservoir operations or projects benefits may be reduced or lost. Life-cycle design is a new
alternative for dams where the reservoir sediment is managed for sustainable use. For example,
Three Gorges Dam in China was constructed with large sediment sluice gates that can be used to
drawdown the reservoir during floods, increase flow velocity through the reservoir, and pass
inflowing sediments downstream.
A-9

DamRemovalAnalysisGuidelines2017 508 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DamRemovalAnalysisGuidelines2017 508 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DamRemovalAnalysisGuidelines2017 508 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dam Removal Analysis Guidelines

U.S. Department of the Interior

Agricultural Research Service

Dam Removal Analysis

Timothy J. Randle, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE.

Jennifer Bountry, M.S., P.E.

Peer Reviewed by:

Blair P. Greimann, Ph.D., P.E.

The guidelines additionally benefited from a dam removal database compiled by

2009 Workshop Participant Affiliation

Chauncey Anderson U.S. Geological Survey

Reservoir impoundment: River water stored behind a dam or weir.

Risk analysis: An estimate of the risk of consequences occurring from releasing

Risk assessment: The process of considering the quantitative or qualitative estimate of

Sediment: Weathered rock particles transported by water or wind. In this guideline,

Flow Chart: Sediment analysis guideline steps for dam removal.

Except for negligible sediment volumes, the potential for contaminants is

A final step is to determine if the predicted sediment impacts are tolerable to

for predicted sediment impacts such as raising levees or temporary treatment of

Dams continue to be an important part of the worldwide infrastructure with new

Dam removal may be a viable management option to restore lost ecosystem

These sediment analysis guidelines have been developed to provide engineers,

DAM CONSTRUCTION AND REMOVAL

Dam construction in the United States

Dam removal challenges

Technical challenges include the determinations of how to safely and efficiently

Dam removal guidelines and resources

• Removing Small Dams – A Basic Guide for Project Managers (American

• Exploring Dam Removal (American Rivers and Trout Unlimited, 2002)

• Frequently asked questions on removal of obsolete dams (U.S. EPA,

1. DRIP: As part of an interdisciplinary working group on dam removal at

2. Clearinghouse for Dam Removal Information: Database hosted by the

SEDIMENT GUIDELINES OVERVIEW

modelers, hydrologists, geomorphologists, geologists, biologists, physical

Using risk to guide level of investigation

The risk is defined as the product of the probability (e.g.

The greater the risk, the greater the recommended level of

The guideline steps can be applied in an iterative approach. Initially, some

baseline for comparison of predicted impacts from other alternatives. By this

Figure 7.—Sediment analysis steps for dam removal.

Understand project objectives

A list of questions to consider, with some example answers, is provided below to

• Why is the dam being considered for removal?

• How will success be measured?

Establish communication plan

• Who will likely fund the project?

o Engaging an experienced contractor early in the dam removal decision

• What types of time sensitive, critical information need to be conveyed

o Altered flow or sediment releases during dam removal

• What information needs to be conveyed to the general public and in what

Establishing a sediment analysis team

Table 2.—Recommended expertise for the sediment analysis team.

Review Permit Requirements

o Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for dams with hydroelectric

CASES OF “NEGLIGIBLE” RESERVOIR SEDIMENT

For the purposes of these guidelines - a negligible reservoir sediment volume is

First, estimate the reservoir sedimentation volume by probing of the reservoir

Next, compare the reservoir sediment volume to sediment storage features

If the reservoir sediment is determined to be negligible, then the guideline user